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 accept-
ability 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 be-
haviour 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.
Keywords
- Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: KRR: Argumentation
