Computational Argumentation Identifies Zones of Possible Agreement in Peace Negotiations

A new research paper on arXiv (2608.15634) introduces a computational approach to identifying mutually acceptable peace agreements between conflicting parties. The method uses quantitative bipolar argumentation frameworks to represent each side's reasoning about agreement clauses, then merges these frameworks to find a Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA). The approach is evaluated on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, where long-standing policy, practitioner, and public debates have shaped contested narratives. The paper argues that citizens' acceptability of peace agreements is mediated not only by the clauses themselves but also by their subjective reasoning about those clauses. By modeling this reasoning, negotiators can identify agreements that are more likely to be accepted. The study is authored by researchers who submitted to arXiv, and it represents a novel application of computational argumentation to conflict resolution. The findings could have implications for negotiation strategies in other conflicts, offering a data-driven method to bridge divides.