Constraints on the search space of argumentation
This work addresses the challenge of making argumentation systems more predictable and manageable for online dispute resolution, though it appears incremental as it builds on existing computational models like Carneades.
The paper tackles the problem of ensuring decidability and foreseeability in argumentation systems for dispute resolution by proposing a model that restricts the search space of arguments to only those proposed by the parties, vetoing new arguments from arbitrators.
Drawing from research on computational models of argumentation (particularly the Carneades Argumentation System), we explore the graphical representation of arguments in a dispute; then, comparing two different traditions on the limits of the justification of decisions, and devising an intermediate, semi-formal, model, we also show that it can shed light on the theory of dispute resolution. We conclude our paper with an observation on the usefulness of highly constrained reasoning for Online Dispute Resolution systems. Restricting the search space of arguments exclusively to reasons proposed by the parties (vetoing the introduction of new arguments by the human or artificial arbitrator) is the only way to introduce some kind of decidability -- together with foreseeability -- in the argumentation system.