On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics

The increasing variety of semantics proposed in the context of Dung's theory of argumentation makes more and more inadequate the example-based approach commonly adopted for evaluating and comparing different semantics. To fill this gap, this paper provides two main contributions. First, a set of general criteria for semantics evaluation is introduced by proposing a formal counterpart to several intuitive notions related to the concepts of maximality, defense, directionality, and skepticism. Then, the proposed criteria are applied in a systematic way to a representative set of argumentation semantics available in the literature, namely grounded, complete, preferred, stable, semi-stable, ideal, prudent, and CF2 semantics.