On the Difference between Assumption-Based Argumentation and Abstract Argumentation

Martinus Wigbertus Antonius Caminada, Samy Sá, João Alcântara, Wolfgang Dvořák

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Downloads (Pure)


In the current paper, we re-examine the connection between abstract argumentation and assumption-based argumentation. These two formalisms are often claimed to be equivalent in the sense that (a) evaluating an assumption based argumentation framework directly with the dedicated semantics, and (b) first constructing the corresponding abstract argumentation framework and then applying the corresponding abstract argumentation semantics, produce the same outcome. Although this holds for several semantics, in this work we show that there exist well-studied admissibility-based semantics (semi-stable and eager) under which equivalence does not hold.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)15-34
Number of pages20
JournalIfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - May 2015

Bibliographical note

The first author has been supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project) and by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSy project). The second and third authors have been supported by CNPq (Universal 2012 - Proc. no. 473110/2012-1), CAPES (PROCAD 2009) and CNPq/CAPES (Casadinho/PROCAD 2011).


  • Assumption-Based Argumentation
  • Abstract Argumentation
  • Semi-Stable Semantics


Dive into the research topics of 'On the Difference between Assumption-Based Argumentation and Abstract Argumentation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this