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.
|Number of pages||20|
|Journal||IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications|
|Publication status||Published - May 2015|
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