# From Contexts to Values: Context-Dependent Defeat in Abstract Argumentation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15536 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.15536/

## 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 (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Design and Results of the Second International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.00621/) (2019)
- [Choosing the Lens: Strategic Perspective Activation in Context-Dependent Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.31581/) (2026)
- [From Argument Components to Graphs: A Multi-Agent Debate with Confidence Gating for Argument Relations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16047/) (2026)

## 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.