A Comparative Study of Ranking-based Semantics for Abstract Argumentation

TL;DR

This paper provides a comprehensive comparison of various ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation, analyzing their properties and behaviors to highlight differences among existing approaches.

Contribution

It offers the first broad comparative analysis of multiple ranking-based semantics in abstract argumentation, focusing on their properties and behavioral distinctions.

Findings

Different semantics exhibit varied property satisfaction

Some semantics outperform others in ranking consistency

Behavioral differences impact argument evaluation outcomes

Abstract

Argumentation is a process of evaluating and comparing a set of arguments. A way to compare them consists in using a ranking-based semantics which rank-order arguments from the most to the least acceptable ones. Recently, a number of such semantics have been proposed independently, often associated with some desirable properties. However, there is no comparative study which takes a broader perspective. This is what we propose in this work. We provide a general comparison of all these semantics with respect to the proposed properties. That allows to underline the differences of behavior between the existing semantics.