An argumentation-based approach to cooperative multi-source epistemic conflict resolution

Abstract

An epistemic conflict is a situation when an agent receives a piece of information in contradiction with its own beliefs. To resolve conflicts, agents need to reason about how to update their beliefs regarding that conflict. In this paper we propose a deep cooperative multi-source epistemic conflict resolution method based on a version of preference-based argumentation. This method is based on the idea that the conflict resolution process should find the root cause of the conflict and the strength of some arguments shouldn't be sensitive to their providers' reputation. Our method formalizes several kinds of belief acquisition methods (e.g. deduction, communication and perception) and their sources and then uses it to provide arguments to support other arguments. It decides preference of some arguments by measuring their source reliability. It also enables the collaboration of other agents in the argumentation process. © 2012 Springer-Verlag.