Extension-ranking Semantics for Abstract Argumentation Preprint
Abstract
In this paper, we present a general framework for ranking sets of arguments in abstract argumentation based on their plausibility of acceptance. We present a generalisation of Dung's extension semantics as extension-ranking semantics, which induce a preorder over the power set of all arguments, allowing us to state that one set is "closer" to being acceptable than another. To evaluate the extension-ranking semantics, we introduce a number of principles that a well-behaved extension-ranking semantics should satisfy. We consider several simple base relations, each of which models a single central aspect of argumentative reasoning. The combination of these base relations provides us with a family of extension-ranking semantics. We also adapt a number of approaches from the literature for ranking extensions to be usable in the context of extension-ranking semantics, and evaluate their behaviour.
Cite
@article{arxiv.2504.21683,
title = {Extension-ranking Semantics for Abstract Argumentation Preprint},
author = {Kenneth Skiba and Tjitze Rienstra and Matthias Thimm and Jesse Heyninck and Gabriele Kern-Isberner},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21683},
year = {2025}
}