From Contexts to Values: Context-Dependent Defeat in Abstract Argumentation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In value-based argumentation, an audience's ordering of values decides which attacks succeed as defeats. In many settings the deciding factor is not the audience but the circumstances: the same attack may succeed at one procedural stage, or under one regulation, and fail at another. Context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), a model we recently introduced, capture this directly: one attack relation and a defeat function that switches each attack on or off per context, so every context induces an ordinary Dung framework. This raises a reduction question: can one value assignment with per-context orderings reproduce the defeat function, collapsing the CDAF into a VAF? We present a polynomial-time decision procedure for this question and map the harder neighbouring problems, with upper bounds from NP to Sigmap3. We also present a validated reference implementation and a measurement: representability is rare and falls fast with the number of contexts.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Aug 2026.
Builds on
3 of 21 references.
References · 3
- 2019Design and Results of the Second International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentationcited by 9
- 2026Choosing the Lens: Strategic Perspective Activation in Context-Dependent Argumentationcited by 1
- 2026From Argument Components to Graphs: A Multi-Agent Debate with Confidence Gating for Argument Relationscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.