An Argumentation-based Protocol for Conflict Resolution

This paper proposes an argumentation-based protocol for resolving conflicts between agents. These agents use assumption-based argumentation in which arguments are built from a set of rules and assumptions using backward deduction. Beyond arguments agents can handle, we propose the notion of par- tial arguments along with partial attack and partial acceptability. These notions allow agents to reason about partial information. Unlike existing protocols, this protocol merges inquiry and persuasion stages. In addition, by building and rea- soning about partial arguments, agents can jointly find arguments supporting a new solution for their conflict, which is not known by any of them individu- ally. Furthermore, during persuasion, agents can acquire new beliefs and drop attacked ones. The protocol is formally specified as a set of simple dialogue rules about which agents can reason using argumentation. We also provide termination, soundness and completeness results of the proposed protocol.