Conflict Resolution in Structured Argumentation

While several interesting argumentation-based semantics for defeasible logic programs have been proposed, to our best knowledge, none of these approaches is able to fully handle the closure under strict rules in a sufficient manner: they are either not closed, or they use workarounds such as transposition of rules which violates desired directionality of logic programming rules. We propose a novel argumentation-based semantics, in which the status of arguments is determined by attacks between newly introduced conflict resolutions instead of attacks between arguments. We show that the semantics is closed w.r.t. strict rules and respects directionality of rules, as well as other desired properties previously published in the literature.