ArgRE: Formal Argumentation for Conflict Resolution in Multi-Agent Requirements Negotiation
This work addresses the lack of explicit, auditable conflict resolution mechanisms in existing multi-agent requirement negotiation approaches, which hinders compliance with transparency demands in highly regulated contexts. The paper introduces Dung’s abstract argumentation framework into requirements engineering for the first time, modeling proposals, critiques, and refinements as argument nodes, with attack relations capturing conflicts. Acceptable argument sets are derived using grounded and preferred semantics, integrated within a structured negotiation process that combines KAOS goal modeling and multi-layer validation. The approach provides argument-level traceability and enables automatic generation of standards-compliant artifacts. Empirical results demonstrate significantly superior traceability over baselines, higher decision rationality (4.32 vs. 3.07, p<0.001), 94.9% BERTScore semantic retention, and improved compliance coverage at 84.7% compared to baseline ranges of 47.6%–47.8%.