Abstract
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 RP-DeLP 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 P NP.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L.: A characterization of collective conflict for defeasible argumentation. In: COMMA, pp. 27–38 (2010)
Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L.: A computational method for defeasible argumentation based on a recursive warrant semantics. In: Kuri-Morales, A., Simari, G.R. (eds.) IBERAMIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6433, pp. 40–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Bondarenko, A., Dung, P.M., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artif. Intell. 93, 63–101 (1997)
Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)
Cecchi, L., Fillottrani, P., Simari, G.: On the complexity of delp through game semantics. In: NMR, pp. 386–394 (2006)
Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical Models of Argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337–383 (2000)
Chesñevar, C., Simari, G., Godo, L.: Computing dialectical trees efficiently in possibilistic defeasible logic programming. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3662, pp. 158–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–358 (1995)
Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: COMMA, pp. 145–156 (2006)
Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)
Een, N., Sorensson, N.: An extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95–138 (2004)
Kautz, H.A., Selman, B.: Unifying sat-based and graph-based planning. In: IJCAI, pp. 318–325 (1999)
Pollock, J.L.: A recursive semantics for defeasible reasoning. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. ch.9, pp. 173–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logical Systems for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Guenther, F. (eds.) Handbook of Phil. Logic, pp. 219–318. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)
Vreeswijk, G.: Abstract argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 90(1-2), 225–279 (1997)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Alsinet, T., Béjar, R., Godo, L., Guitart, F. (2011). Maximal Ideal Recursive Semantics for Defeasible Argumentation. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6929. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23963-2_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-23962-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-23963-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)