When are Two Arguments the Same? Equivalence in Abstract Argumentation

Dov Gabbay, Davide Grossi

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

1 Scopus citations


In abstract argumentation arguments are just points in a network of attacks: they do not hold premisses, conclusions or internal structure. So is there a meaningful way in which two arguments, belonging possibly to different attack graphs, can be said to be equivalent? The paper argues for a positive answer and, interfacing methods from modal logic, the theory of argument games and the equational approach to argumentation, puts forth and explores a formal theory of equivalence for abstract argumentation.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationOutstanding Contributions to Logic
Number of pages25
StatePublished - 2014

Publication series

NameOutstanding Contributions to Logic
ISSN (Print)2211-2758
ISSN (Electronic)2211-2766

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2014, Springer International Publishing Switzerland.


  • Abstract argumentation
  • Argument games
  • Bisimulation
  • Equational approaches
  • Modal logic


Dive into the research topics of 'When are Two Arguments the Same? Equivalence in Abstract Argumentation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this