SCC-recursiveness in infinite argumentation (extended version)

Uri Andrews, Luca San Mauro
7/9/2025
cs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Argumentation frameworks (AFs) are a foundational tool in artificial intelligence for modeling structured reasoning and conflict. SCC-recursiveness is a well-known design principle in which the evaluation of arguments is decomposed according to the strongly connected components (SCCs) of the attack graph, proceeding recursively from "higher" to "lower" components. While SCC-recursive semantics such as \cft and \stgt have proven effective for finite AFs, Baumann and Spanring showed the failure of SCC-recursive semantics to generalize reliably to infinite AFs due to issues with well-foundedness. We propose two approaches to extending SCC-recursiveness to the infinite setting. We systematically evaluate these semantics using Baroni and Giacomin's established criteria, showing in particular that directionality fails in general. We then examine these semantics' behavior in finitary frameworks, where we find some of our semantics satisfy directionality. These results advance the theory of infinite argumentation and lay the groundwork for reasoning systems capable of handling unbounded or evolving domains.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{andrews2025sccrecursiveness,
  title  = {SCC-recursiveness in infinite argumentation (extended version)},
  author = {Uri Andrews and Luca San Mauro},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2507.06852},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06852v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2507.06852.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2507.06852)

Discussion