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 DeLP notion of warrant and ASPIC+'s notion of justification are equivalent. This result is proven for three alternative definitions of attack. This paper is under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).

本文正式比较了两种基于规则的论证形式，DeLP和ASPIC+的一些中心概念，特别关注直观的充分性和可相互转换性、一致性和闭合性质。与攻击和论据的定义不同，DeLP的定义更具吸引力，但可能不完全符合严格闭合和间接一致性的理性假设。 针对一些特殊情况，DeLP的定义被证明比ASPIC+更好。最后证明了如果将DeLP确认程序更改为基于grounded语义，那么DeLP的warrant概念和ASPIC +的justification的概念是相等的，并为三种攻击定义的情况证明了这一结果。

ASPIC+和DeLP的若干核心概念的比较研究