Ranking Sets of Arguments in Abstract Argumentation

In this thesis, we explore various approaches to rank sets of arguments within an abstract argumentation framework, providing more nuanced reasoning that goes beyond traditional binary classification. These approaches allow us to determine not only whether sets of arguments are accepted but also whether one set is more “acceptable” than another. We introduce the notion of extension-ranking semantics, which creates a preorder over the powerset of arguments, enabling us to compare the plausibility of acceptance of different sets.