bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Extension–based Semantics of Abstract Dialectical Frameworks'
---

Introduction
============

Over the last years, argumentation has become an influential subfield of artificial intelligence [@book:argai]. One of its subareas is the *abstract argumentation*, which became especially popular thanks to the research of Phan Minh Dung [@article:dung]. Although the framework he has developed was relatively limited, as it took into account only the conflict relation between the arguments, it inspired a search for more general models (see [@general] for an overview). Among the most abstract enrichments are the abstract dialectical frameworks, ADFs for short [@inproc:adf]. They make use of the so–called acceptance conditions to express arbitrary interactions between the arguments. However, a framework cannot be considered a suitable argumentation tool without properly developed semantics. The semantics of a framework are meant to represent what is considered rational. Given many of the advanced semantics, such as grounded or complete, we can observe that they return same results when faced with simple, tree–like frameworks. The differences between them become more visible when we work with more complicated cases. On various occasions examples were found for which none of the available semantics returned satisfactory answers. This gave rise to new concepts: for 