Ranking-based Argumentation Semantics Applied to Logical Argumentation (full version)
This work addresses the gap in applying ranking-based semantics to structured argumentation, which is incremental as it extends existing formalisms rather than introducing a new paradigm.
The paper systematically investigates the behavior of ranking-based semantics applied to structured argumentation, showing that a wide class of these semantics leads to culpability measures and is robust to variations in argument construction methods.
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.