# Choosing the Lens: Strategic Perspective Activation in Context-Dependent Argumentation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.31581 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.31581/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 3 of its 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [A General Account of Argumentation with Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.06763/) (2018)
- [Multi-Agent Dialectical Refinement for Enhanced Argument Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.27451/) (2026)
- [Rashomon Memory: Towards Argumentation-Driven Retrieval for Multi-Perspective Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.03588/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [From Contexts to Values: Context-Dependent Defeat in Abstract Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.15536/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The same arguments often need to be evaluated under different external regimes. An agent with influence over the regime has a strategic lever that standard formalisms do not directly capture. We introduce context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), an extension of Dung's theory in which a defeat function determines, per context, which attacks succeed. Blocked attacks are inverted rather than deleted, so extensions stay conflict-free with respect to the attack relation. A perspective-labeled specialisation derives the defeat function from a relevance set ρ and a priority π. The relevance set is the agent's action space. In a small worked example, the agent's target argument is rejected under every full-relevance priority, yet accepted under a partial activation whose outcome no VAF audience can mirror. We define the corresponding decision problem, ACTIVATION-MANIPULATION, and record baseline complexity bounds. For grounded semantics with mandatory perspectives the problem is NP-complete, and the hardness comes from the activation choice itself.