Intertranslatability of Labeling-Based Argumentation Semantics

Abstract Argumentation is a simple yet powerful formalism for modeling the human reasoning and argumentation process. Various semantics have been suggested with a view of arriving at coherent outcomes of the argumentation process. Two categories of semantics are well-known, extension-based semantics and labeling-based semantics. Translations between semantics are an important area of interest that enhance our understanding of the dynamics of various semantics and their structural and semantic interrelationship. The application of translations to extension-based semantics has been investigated in detail in the literature, however for labeling-based semantics which provide a more fine grained notion of acceptability such translations have not yet been studied. In this work, we fill this gab by investigating intertranslatability of labeling-based semantics. We show in which cases the existing results from the extension-based setting carry over to the labeling-based setting and we investigate intertranslatability between the three unique status semantics grounded, ideal and eager .