Ranking-based Argumentation Semantics Applied to Logical Argumentation (full version)

TL;DR

This paper explores how ranking-based semantics can be systematically applied to structured argumentation, revealing their robustness and connection to culpability measures in formal argumentation.

Contribution

It provides a systematic investigation of ranking-based semantics in structured argumentation, highlighting their robustness and relation to culpability measures.

Findings

Ranking-based semantics lead to culpability measures.

They are robust to different argument construction methods.

The study bridges abstract and structured argumentation approaches.

Abstract

In formal argumentation, a distinction can be made between extension-based semantics, where sets of arguments are either (jointly) accepted or not, and ranking-based semantics, where grades of acceptability are assigned to arguments. Another important distinction is that between abstract approaches, that abstract away from the content of arguments, and structured approaches, that specify a method of constructing argument graphs on the basis of a knowledge base. While ranking-based semantics have been extensively applied to abstract argumentation, few work has been done on ranking-based semantics for structured argumentation. In this paper, we make a systematic investigation into the behaviour of ranking-based semantics applied to existing formalisms for structured argumentation. We show that a wide class of ranking-based semantics gives rise to so-called culpability measures, and are relatively robust to specific choices in argument construction methods.