Investigation of semantic behavior in probabilistic argumentation

Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks (PAFs) extend Abstract Argumentation Frameworks (AAFs) by incorporating probabilistic measures to evaluate argument acceptability. While acceptability evaluations are determined by semantics in both AAFs and PAFs, some key properties underlying semantic behavior in PAFs remain underexplored. This paper systematically investigates directionality, skepticism adequacy, and dynamic monotony in PAFs, establishing their satisfiability across classical semantics. Importantly, we demonstrate that under any semantics, the satisfiability of directionality and skepticism adequacy from the perspective of individual argument acceptability is equivalent between AAFs and PAFs. Besides, for dynamics, we characterize how argument acceptabilities change with structural changes in PAFs, affected by the parity of attack paths. These theoretical insights advance the understanding of argumentation semantics under uncertainty, thereby providing guidance for adapting semantics in probabilistic environments.