We present a translation from defeasible theory bases to abstract dialectical frameworks, a recent generalisation of abstract argumentation frameworks. Using several problematic examples from the literature, we first show how our translation addresses important issues of existing approaches. We then prove that the translated frameworks satisfy the rationality postulates closure and direct/indirect consistency. Furthermore, the frameworks can detect inconsistencies in the set of strict inference rules and cyclic (strict and defeasible) supports amongst literals. We also show that the translation involves at most a quadratic blowup and is therefore effectively and efficiently computable.
展开▼
