Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The paper studies semantics that evaluate arguments in argumentation graphs, where each argument has a basic strength, and may be attacked by other arguments. It starts by defining a set of principles, each of which is a property that a semantics could satisfy. It provides the first formal analysis and comparison of existing semantics. Finally, it defines three novel semantics that satisfy more principles than existing ones.
Amgoud et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: