Multi-agent conflict resolution: a computational framework for an intelligent argumentation program

摘要

In the system described in the paper, agents attempt to make claims using tactical rules (such as fairness and commitment), and agents also say what other claims these claims support or attack. Claims can be set of claims connected by attacking and supporting links. As debate continues, a shared argument map is created. This map is controlled by strategic rules which control the location of the attention focus within the argument map. Unlike in current work on reasoning and argumentation, our system does not require truth propagation or consistency maintenance. Instead, inconsistency is assumed to stand unless it is attacked by an opponent. An evaluation function calculates the strength of arguments in terms of a number of structural constraints, so that invulnerability to attack on the grounds of self inconsistency is merely one among several criteria, which include constructiveness, relevance, and familiarity. Arguments are mappings from source to target domains, and they are constructed by three knowledge sources: quasi-logic, value transfer, and emotional appeal.