Abstract
We compare four different implementations of reasoning-tools dedicated to Abstract Argumentation Frameworks. These systems are ArgTools, ASPARTIX, ConArg2, and Dung-O-Matic. They have been tested over three different models of randomly-generated graph models, corresponding to the Erdős-Rényi model, the Kleinberg small-world model, and the scale-free Barabasi-Albert model. This first comparison is useful to study the behaviour of these tools over networks with different topologies (also small-world): we scale the number of arguments to check the limits of today’s systems. Such results can be used to guide further improvements of ConArg2 (our tool), but also different tools.