Coalitions of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks

Overview & Synopsis

Bipolar argumentation frameworks enable to represent two kinds of interaction between arguments: support and conflict. In this paper, we turn a bipolar argumentation framework into a "meta-argumentation" framework where conflicts occur between sets of arguments, characterized as coalitions of supporting arguments. So, Dung's well-known semantics can be used on this metaargumentation framework in order to select the acceptable arguments. Arg. a: If we have the agreement, the important information I on the person X must be published. Arg. b: I is a private information and X does not agree for publication. Arg. c1: Yes, I concerns X's family. Arg. c2: Moreover, X is a private person. Arg. d: No, X is the new prime minister.