Computing Preferences in Abstract Argumentation

We present an extension-based approach for computing preferences in an abstract argumentation system. Although numerous argumentation semantics have been developed previously for identifying acceptable sets of arguments from an argumentation framework, there is a lack of justification behind their acceptability based on implicit argument preferences. This paper presents a novel algorithm for exhaustively computing and enumerating all possible sets of preferences for a conflict-free set of arguments in an abstract argumentation framework. We prove the soundness and completeness of the algorithm. The research establishes that preferences are determined using an extension-based approach after the evaluation phase (acceptability of arguments) rather than stated beforehand. We also present some novel insights by comparing the computed preferences for the extensions.