Evaluation of arguments in weighted bipolar graphs

The paper tackled the issue of arguments evaluation in weighted bipolar argumentation graphs (i.e., graphs whose arguments have basic strengths, and may be both supported and attacked). We introduce principles that an evaluation method (or semantics) could satisfy. Such principles are very useful for understanding the foundations of semantics, judging them, and comparing semantics. We then analyze existing semantics on the basis of our principles, and finally propose a new semantics for the class of acyclic graphs. We show that it satisfies all the principles.