Maximal Ideal Recursive Semantics for Defeasible Argumentation

In a previous work we defined a recursive warrant semantics for Defeasible Logic Programming extended with levels of possibilistic uncertainty for defeasible rules. The resulting argumentation framework, called RP-DeLP, is based on a general notion of collective (non-binary) conflict among arguments allowing to ensure direct and indirect consistency properties with respect to the strict knowledge. An output of an RP-DeLP program is a pair of sets of warranted and blocked conclusions (literals), all of them recursively based on warranted conclusions but, while warranted conclusions do not generate any conflict, blocked conclusions do. An RP-DeLP program may have multiple outputs in case of circular definitions of conflicts among arguments. In this paper we tackle the problem of which output one should consider for an RP-DeLP program with multiple outputs. To this end we define the maximal ideal output of an RPDeLP program as the set of conclusions which are ultimately warranted and we present an algorithm for computing them in polynomial space and with an upper bound on complexity equal to PNP.