Researchers have developed context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), which allow for different attacks to succeed or fail based on specific circumstances. In contrast to traditional value-based argumentation, where an audience's ordering of values determines the outcome, CDAFs consider the context in which the arguments are presented. The authors investigate whether CDAFs can be reduced to traditional value-based frameworks, and present a polynomial-time decision procedure for this question. They also provide a validated reference implementation and measurements showing that representability is rare and decreases with the number of contexts. --- Why it matters: This research matters because it provides insights into how argumentation frameworks can be made more flexible and context-dependent, which could have implications for applications in areas such as natural language processing, decision-making systems, and multi-agent reasoning. Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15536