Eliciting Rational Initial Weights in Gradual Argumentation

After the seminal work of [1], the argumentation community's focus has shifted to the relation between arguments, abstracting the content of the arguments. Thus, debates or discussions are represented as directed graphs, with arguments as nodes and attacks between arguments as directed edges. Several extension-based semantics have been defined to obtain conclusions from argumentation graphs. Such semantics identify subsets of arguments (called extensions), representing consistent conclusions [2, 3, 4]. Motivated by the work of [5], researchers started to focus on semantics which could give a more gradual view on arguments' acceptability by ranking them from the "less attacked" to the most (not necessarily based on the cardinality or quality of the attackers) [6].