Strong Equivalence For Argumentation Frameworks With Collective Attacks

Argumentation frameworks with collective attacks are a prominent extension of Dung's abstract argumentation frameworks, where an attack can be drawn from a set of arguments to another argument. These frameworks are often abbreviated as SETAFs. Although SETAFs have received increasing interest recently, the notion of strong equivalence, which is fundamental in nonmonotonic formalisms to characterize equivalent replacements, has not yet been investigated. In this paper, we study how strong equivalence between SETAFs can be decided with respect to the most important semantics and also consider variants of strong equivalence.