Argumentation is a formalism allowing to reason with contradictory information by modeling arguments and their interactions. There are now an increasing number of gradual semantics and impact measures that have emerged to facilitate the interpretation of their outcomes. An impact measure assesses, for each argument, the impact of other arguments on its score. In this paper, we refine an existing impact measure from Delobelle and Villata and introduce a new impact measure rooted in Shapley values. We introduce several principles to evaluate those two impact measures w.r.t. some well-known gradual semantics. This comprehensive analysis provides deeper insights into their functionality and desirability.

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 pro- posed 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 proper- ties. That allows to underline the differences of behavior between the existing semantics.