On the Equivalence between Assumption-Based Argumentation and Logic Programming

In the current paper, we re-examine the relationship between Assumption-Based Argumentation (ABA) and logic programming (LP). For this, we specify a procedure that, given a flat ABA frameworks with unique non-assumption contraries, yields an associated logic program such that the 3-valued stable (resp. well-founded, regular, (2-valued) stable, and ideal) models of the logic program coincide with the complete (resp. grounded, preferred, stable, and ideal) assumption labellings of the ABA framework. Moreover, we show how our results on the translation from ABA to LP can be reapplied for a reverse translation from LP to ABA, and observe that some of the existing results in the literature are in fact special cases of our work. Overall, we show that a frequently used fragment of ABA (flat ABA frameworks with unique non-assumption contraries under complete, grounded, preferred, stable, or ideal semantics) can be seen as a form of logic programming.