A Comparative Study of Ranking-based Semantics for Abstract Argumentation
This work addresses a gap in the argumentation theory community by synthesizing and comparing independently proposed semantics, but it is incremental as it focuses on analysis rather than introducing new methods.
The paper tackles the lack of a comparative study of ranking-based semantics in abstract argumentation by providing a general comparison of existing semantics with respect to proposed properties, highlighting differences in behavior.
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.