Structured Argumentation System for Asynchronous Forecasting

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Online message boards lack structure and guidance, leading to unproductive discussions due to off-topic drift, lack of source validation, and biases such as anchoring and confirmation bias, making it difficult for users to reach consensus on forecasts.

Innovation Solution

A system that presents users with structured prompts for numerical and explanatory responses, displays ordered lists of other users' responses to mitigate biases, and uses distance measures to rank disagreements, allowing for consensus or mediated forecasts, with automated evaluation of citations and rationales to promote productive debate.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If users provide unstructured responses on message boards, then the system is simple to operate, but the discussion becomes unstructured and difficult to analyze

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveease of providing responsesVSAvoidstructure of discussion
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSShape

Solution Approach 1:

The response is segmented into distinct components: a numerical forecast portion and an explanatory rationale portion. This segmentation maintains ease of operation while introducing structure, allowing users to provide forecasts in their natural way while the system captures and organizes the data into analyzable components.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system introduces an intermediary processing layer that receives unstructured user responses and transforms them into structured data formats. The processing circuit acts as a mediator between the simple user interface and the structured analysis requirements, maintaining ease of operation while enabling structured discussion analysis.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Ease of operation

If users are allowed to post responses freely without guidance, then the system is easy to use, but discussions drift off-topic and lack focus

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveease of participating in discussionVSAvoidfocus of discussion
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary action by presenting users with structured prompts that guide them to provide focused responses. The prompt is prepared in advance with specific guidance on what information is needed (numerical forecast and rationale), ensuring discussions remain on-topic while users still participate easily.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system provides feedback to users by displaying ordered lists of other responses and highlighting relevant information. This feedback mechanism keeps users engaged with the discussion focus while maintaining ease of participation, preventing drift by continuously showing what others are saying in relation to the original question.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Extent of automation

If users rely on their own biases and initial opinions, then the system requires minimal intervention, but consensus is difficult to reach

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomation of opinion formationVSAvoidaccuracy of forecast consensus
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system introduces an intermediary processing layer that objectively evaluates and ranks responses based on criteria such as rationale quality and citation support. This mediator prevents users from being solely influenced by their own biases while maintaining automation, creating a reliable consensus process that transcends individual subjective opinions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The system replaces the mechanical process of manual consensus-building with automated evaluation mechanisms. The processing circuit automatically assesses responses, ranks them by distance from the original question, and determines consensus or mediates forecasts, eliminating the need for users to manually navigate biased opinions while maintaining reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

4Device complexity

If the system displays all responses without ordering, then the system is simple to implement, but users cannot efficiently identify relevant information

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecomplexity of response displayVSAvoiddifficulty of identifying relevant responses
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSDifficulty of detecting and measuring

Solution Approach 1:

The system replaces simple unordered display with automated computational ranking based on distance measures. The processing circuit calculates the distance between each response and the original question, then orders responses accordingly. This substitution maintains implementation simplicity while dramatically improving the ability to detect and measure relevant information.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the parameter of response organization from unordered to ordered based on distance from the original question. By transforming the display parameter from simple listing to distance-based ranking, the system maintains implementation simplicity while making relevant information easily identifiable through the ordered presentation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP3935584B1System of structured argumentation for asynchronous collaboration and machine-based arbitration
Publication Date: 2024.07.31 HRL LAB
  • EP3935584B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3935584B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3935584B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A method for collecting and processing user input. In some embodiments the method includes presenting a first user with a prompt for eliciting a first response, the first response including a numerical portion including one or more numbers, and an explanatory portion; receiving, from the first user, the first response; receiving from each of a plurality of other users, a respective response of a plurality of other responses; and displaying, to the first user, an ordered list of other responses. Within the ordered list, a second response, of the plurality of other responses, may be earlier than a third response, of the plurality of other responses, the second response being, according to a measure of distance, more distant, than the third response, from the first response.