Splitting an argumentation framework

Abstract

Splitting results in non-mononotonic formalisms have a long tradition. On the one hand, these results can be used to improve existing computational procedures, and on the other hand they yield deeper theoretical insights into how a non-monotonic approach works. In the 90's Lifschitz and Turner [1,2] proved splitting results for logic programs and default theory. In this paper we establish similar results for Dung style argumentation frameworks (AFs) under the most important semantics, namely stable, preferred, complete and grounded semantics. Furthermore we show how to use these results in dynamical argumentation. © 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.