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 meta-argumentation framework to select the acceptable arguments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cayrol et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: