This paper formally compares some central notions from two well-known formalisms for rule-based argumentation, DeLP and ASPIC+. The comparisons especially focus on intuitive adequacy and inter-translatability, consistency, and closure properties. As for differences in the definitions of arguments and attack, it turns out that DeLP’s definitions are intuitively appealing but that they may not fully comply with Caminada and Amgoud’s rationality postulates of strict closure and indirect consistency. For some special cases, the DeLP definitions are shown to fare better than ASPIC+. Next, it is argued that there are reasons to consider a variant of DeLP with grounded semantics, since in some examples its current notion of warrant arguably has counterintuitive consequences and may lead to sets of warranted arguments that are not admissible. Finally, under some minimality and consistency assumptions on ASPIC+ arguments, a one-to-many correspondence between ASPIC+ arguments and DeLP arguments is identified in such a way that if the DeLP warranting procedure is changed to grounded semantics, then ’s DeLP notion of warrant and ASPIC+ ’s notion of justification are equivalent. This result is proven for three alternative definitions of attack.

中文翻译：

---

ASPIC+和DeLP的一些核心概念的比较研究

本文正式比较了两个著名的基于规则的论证形式的一些中心概念，德尔普和肉冻+. 比较特别关注直观的充分性和互译性、一致性和封闭性。至于论点和攻击定义的差异，事实证明德尔普的定义在直觉上很吸引人，但它们可能不完全符合卡米纳达和阿姆古德关于严格封闭和间接一致性的理性假设。对于一些特殊情况，德尔普定义显示比肉冻+. 接下来，有人认为有理由考虑德尔普使用扎根的语义，因为在某些示例中，其当前的保证概念可以说具有违反直觉的后果，并且可能导致一组不可接受的有保证的论点。最后，在一些最小性和一致性假设下肉冻+参数之间的一对多对应关系肉冻+论据和德尔普论点的识别方式是，如果德尔普保证过程更改为接地语义，则德尔普权证的概念和肉冻+的证明概念是等价的。这个结果被证明了攻击的三个替代定义。