Duality between Addition and Removal

A Tool for Studying Change in Argumentation
  • Pierre Bisquert
  • Claudette Cayrol
  • Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr
  • Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 297)


In this paper, we address a new problem in the field of argumentation theory: the link between two different change operations, namely addition and removal of an argument. We define two concepts of duality reflecting this link. They are used to propose new results about an operation from existing results concerning its dual operation. Finally, the propositions that are obtained are studied for characterizing the change operations.


Argumentation Dynamics in abstract argumentation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Intl Journal of Automated Reasoning 29(2), 125–169 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proc. of ICMAS, pp. 31–38 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumann, R., Brewka, G.: Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results. In: Proc. of COMMA, pp. 75–86. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., Dupin de Saint Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Change in Argumentation Systems: Exploring the Interest of Removing an Argument. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6929, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C.: Dupin de Saint Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Characterizing change in argumentation by using duality between addition and removal. Tech. rep., IRIT, UPS, Toulouse, France (2012),
  6. 6.
    Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Abstraction Principles and the Grounded Extension. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5590, pp. 107–118. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension. In: Proc. of AAMAS, pp. 1213–1214 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cayrol, C., Dupin de Saint Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 38, 49–84 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method. Artificial Intelligence 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moguillansky, M.O., Rotstein, N.D., Falappa, M.A., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument theory change through defeater activation. In: Proc. of COMMA 2010, pp. 359–366. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Bisquert
    • 1
  • Claudette Cayrol
    • 1
  • Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr
    • 1
  • Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex
    • 1
  1. 1.IRIT, Université Paul SabatierToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations