E. W. Adams, The Logic of Conditionals: An Application of Probability to Deductive Logic, 1975.
DOI : 10.1007/978-94-015-7622-2

L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol, A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol.34, issue.1/3, pp.197-215, 2002.
DOI : 10.1023/A:1014490210693

P. Baroni, G. Boella, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, L. Van-der-torre et al., On the Input/Output behavior of argumentation frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, vol.217, pp.144-197, 2014.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2014.08.004
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01075966

P. Baroni, M. Caminada, and M. Giacomin, An introduction to argumentation semantics, The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol.93, issue.04, pp.365-410, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_2

P. Baroni, F. Cerutti, M. Giacomin, and G. Guida, AFRA: Argumentation framework with recursive attacks, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol.52, issue.1, pp.19-37, 2011.
DOI : 10.1016/j.ijar.2010.05.004
URL : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2010.05.004

P. Baroni and M. Giacomin, On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics, Artificial Intelligence, vol.171, issue.10-15, pp.10-15675, 2007.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.004

P. Baroni and M. Giacomin, Semantics of Abstract Argument Systems, In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp.25-44, 2009.
DOI : 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_2

P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, and G. Guida, SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics, Artificial Intelligence, vol.168, issue.1-2, pp.162-210, 2005.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2005.05.006

P. Baroni, M. Giacomin, and B. Liao, On topology-related properties of abstract argumentation semantics. A correction and extension to Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method, Artificial Intelligence, vol.212, pp.104-115, 2014.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2014.03.003

R. Baumann, Normal and strong expansion equivalence for argumentation frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, vol.193, pp.18-44, 2012.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2012.08.004
URL : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2012.08.004

R. Baumann, What does it take to enforce an argument? minimal change in abstract argumentation, ECAI 2012 -20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Including Prestigious Applications of Artificial Intelligence (PAIS-2012) System Demonstrations Track, pp.127-132, 2012.

R. Baumann and G. Brewka, Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp.75-86, 2010.

J. M. Trevor and . Bench-capon, Value-based argumentation frameworks, 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp.443-454, 2002.

J. M. Trevor, Bench-Capon. Persuasion in practical argument using valuebased argumentation frameworks, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol.13, issue.3, pp.429-448, 2003.

J. M. Trevor, S. Bench-capon, P. E. Doutre, and . Dunne, Audiences in argumentation frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, vol.171, issue.1, pp.42-71, 2007.

S. Benferhat, S. Lagrue, and O. Papini, Revision of partially ordered information: Axiomatization, semantics and iteration, IJCAI-05, Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.376-381, 2005.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00018834

P. Bisquert, C. Cayrol, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and M. , Enforcement in Argumentation Is a Kind of Update, Scalable Uncertainty Management -7th International Conference, SUM 2013 Proceedings, pp.30-43, 2013.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_3
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01606830

A. Bochman, Credulous Nonmonotonic Inference, Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 99, pp.30-35, 1450.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-662-04560-2_9
URL : http://www.hait.ac.il/computers/staff/Bochman/ljbrav.ps

G. Boella, C. Da, C. Pereira, A. Tettamanzi, and L. Van-der-torre, Dung argumentation and agm belief revision. Fifth International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, 2008.

G. Boella, D. M. Gabbay, A. Perotti, L. Van-der-torre, and S. Villata, Conditional Labelling for Abstract Argumentation, Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation -First International Workshop, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-29184-5_15

S. Barcelona, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.7132, pp.232-248, 2011.

R. Booth, D. M. Gabbay, S. Kaci, T. Rienstra, and L. W. Van-der-torre, Abduction and dialogical proof in argumentation and logic programming, ECAI 2014 -21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence Czech Republic -Including Prestigious Applications of Intelligent Systems, pp.117-122, 2014.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-01082080

R. Booth, S. Kaci, and T. Rienstra, Property-Based Preferences in Abstract Argumentation, Algorithmic Decision Theory -Third International Conference , ADT 2013 Proceedings, pp.86-100, 2013.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-41575-3_7
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-00929825

R. Booth, S. Kaci, T. Rienstra, and L. Van-der-torre, A Logical Theory about Dynamics in Abstract Argumentation, Scalable Uncertainty Management -7th International Conference, SUM 2013 Proceedings, volume 8078 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp.148-161, 2013.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_12
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-00863487

R. Booth, S. Kaci, T. Rienstra, and L. Van-der-torre, Monotonic and nonmonotonic inference for abstract argumentation, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS 2013, 2013.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-00857793

R. Booth, S. Kaci, T. Rienstra, and L. W. Van-der-torre, Conditional acceptance functions, Computational Models of Argument -Proceedings of COMMA 2012, pp.470-477, 2012.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-00762955

M. Caminada, On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation, Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 10th European Conference Proceedings, pp.111-123, 2006.
DOI : 10.1007/11853886_11

M. Caminada, Semi-stable semantics, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pp.121-130, 2006.
DOI : 10.1016/S0022-0000(05)80053-4

M. Caminada, Comparing two unique extension semantics for formal argumentation: ideal and eager, Proceedings of the 19th Belgian-Dutch conference on artificial intelligence, pp.81-87, 2007.

M. Caminada and G. Pigozzi, On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol.152, issue.2, pp.64-102, 2011.
DOI : 10.3366/E1742360007000135

M. Caminada and M. Podlaszewski, Grounded semantics as persuasion dialogue, Computational Models of Argument -Proceedings of COMMA 2012, pp.478-485, 2012.

M. Caminada, S. Sá, and J. Alcântara, On the Equivalence between Logic Programming Semantics and Argumentation Semantics, Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty -12th European Conference, ECSQARU 2013, pp.97-108, 2013.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-39091-3_9

W. A. Martin and . Caminada, Preferred semantics as socratic discussion, Proceedings of the eleventh AI*IA symposium on artificial intelligence, pp.209-216, 2010.

W. A. Martin, D. M. Caminada, and . Gabbay, A logical account of formal argumentation, Studia Logica, vol.93, issue.2-3, pp.109-145, 2009.

C. Cayrol, F. Dupin-de-saint-cyr, and M. , Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol.38, pp.49-84, 2010.

C. Cayrol and M. , On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks, Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty , 8th European Conference, ECSQARU 2005 Proceedings, pp.378-389, 2005.
DOI : 10.1007/11518655_33

S. Coste-marquis, C. Devred, and P. Marquis, Prudent semantics for argumentation frameworks, 17th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI'05), pp.14-16, 2005.
DOI : 10.1109/ICTAI.2005.103
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00397446

S. Coste-marquis, S. Konieczny, J. Mailly, and P. Marquis, On the revision of argumentation systems: Minimal change of arguments statuses, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference, 2014.

A. Darwiche and J. Pearl, On the logic of iterated belief revision, Artificial Intelligence, vol.89, issue.1-2, pp.1-29, 1996.
DOI : 10.1016/S0004-3702(96)00038-0

M. Denecker and A. Kakas, Abduction in Logic Programming, Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, pp.402-436
DOI : 10.1007/3-540-45628-7_16

F. Dietrich and C. List, *, No??s, vol.47, issue.1, pp.104-134, 2013.
DOI : 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2011.00840.x

F. Dietrich and C. List, Where do preferences come from?, International Journal of Game Theory, vol.211, issue.4481, pp.613-637, 2013.
DOI : 10.1126/science.7455683
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00978007

D. Phan-minh, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, vol.77, issue.2, pp.321-358, 1995.

P. Phan-minh-dung, F. Mancarella, and . Toni, A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pp.145-156, 2006.

E. Paul and . Dunne, Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints, Artificial intelligence, vol.171, pp.10-15701, 2007.

E. Paul, W. Dunne, T. Dvorák, S. Linsbichler, and . Woltran, Characteristics of multiple viewpoints in abstract argumentation, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference, 2014.

E. Paul, A. Dunne, P. Hunter, S. Mcburney, M. Parsons et al., Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms , and complexity results, Artificial Intelligence, vol.175, issue.2, pp.457-486, 2011.

W. Dvo?ák, Computational aspects of abstract argumentation, 2012.

D. M. Gabbay, Theoretical Foundations for Non-Monotonic Reasoning in Expert Systems, Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, pp.439-457, 1985.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-82453-1_15

M. Dov and . Gabbay, Semantics for higher level attacks in extended argumentation frames part 1: Overview, Studia Logica, vol.93, issue.2-3, pp.357-381, 2009.

D. M. Gabbay, Introducing Equational Semantics for Argumentation Networks, Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty -11th European Conference Proceedings, pp.19-35, 2011.
DOI : 10.1007/s11225-009-9220-3
URL : http://orbilu.uni.lu/bitstream/10993/15872/1/chp%253A10.1007%252F978-3-642-22152-1_2.pdf

P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson, Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations, Artificial Intelligence, vol.65, issue.2, pp.197-245, 1994.
DOI : 10.1016/0004-3702(94)90017-5

A. Van-gelder, K. A. Ross, and J. S. Schlipf, The well-founded semantics for general logic programs, Journal of the ACM, vol.38, issue.3, pp.620-650, 1991.
DOI : 10.1145/116825.116838

M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, The stable model semantics for logic programming, Logic Programming, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium, pp.1070-1080, 1988.

G. Governatori, M. J. Maher, G. Antoniou, and D. Billington, Argumentation Semantics for Defeasible Logic, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol.14, issue.5, pp.675-702, 2004.
DOI : 10.1093/logcom/14.5.675

P. Grdenfors, Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, 1988.

A. Hunter, A probabilistic approach to modelling uncertain logical arguments, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol.54, issue.1, pp.47-81, 2013.
DOI : 10.1016/j.ijar.2012.08.003

K. Inoue and C. Sakama, Abductive framework for nonmonotonic theory change, IJCAI, pp.204-210, 1995.
DOI : 10.1007/978-94-017-0606-3_14

K. Inoue and C. Sakama, Computing extended abduction through transaction programs, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol.25, issue.3/4, pp.339-367, 1999.
DOI : 10.1023/A:1018926021566

H. Jakobovits and D. Vermeir, Robust semantics for argumentation frameworks, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol.9, issue.2, pp.215-261, 1999.
DOI : 10.1093/logcom/9.2.215
URL : http://tinf2.vub.ac.be/~dvermeir/papers/papers/arguments.ps.gz

S. Kaci and L. Van-der-torre, Preference-based argumentation: Arguments supporting multiple values, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol.48, issue.3, pp.730-751, 2008.
DOI : 10.1016/j.ijar.2007.07.005
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00800647

D. Kontarinis, E. Bonzon, N. Maudet, A. Perotti, L. Van-der-torre et al., Rewriting Rules for the Computation of Goal-Oriented Changes in an Argumentation System, Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems -14th International Proceedings, volume 8143 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp.51-68, 2013.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9_4
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00907875

S. Kraus, D. J. Lehmann, and M. Magidor, Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics, Artificial Intelligence, vol.44, issue.1-2, pp.167-207, 1990.
DOI : 10.1016/0004-3702(90)90101-5
URL : http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0202021

J. Daniel, M. Lehmann, and . Magidor, What does a conditional knowledge base entail?, Artificial Intelligence, vol.55, issue.1, pp.1-60, 1992.

H. Li, N. Oren, and T. J. Norman, Probabilistic argumentation frameworks Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation -First International Workshop, TAFA 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.7132, pp.1-16, 2011.

L. Bei-shui-liao, R. C. Jin, and . Koons, Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method, Artificial Intelligence, vol.175, issue.11, pp.1790-1814, 2011.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2011.03.006

J. Lobo and C. Uzcátegui, Abductive consequence relations, Artificial Intelligence, vol.89, issue.1-2, pp.149-171, 1997.
DOI : 10.1016/S0004-3702(96)00032-X
URL : https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-3702(96)00032-x

S. Modgil, Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, vol.173, issue.9-10, pp.901-934, 2009.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2009.02.001
URL : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2009.02.001

S. Modgil and M. W. Caminada, Proof Theories and Algorithms for Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp.105-129, 2009.
DOI : 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_6
URL : http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/smodgil/ProofTheories_and_Algorithms.pdf

O. Martín, N. D. Moguillansky, M. A. Rotstein, A. J. Falappa, G. R. García et al., Argument theory change through defeater activation, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp.359-366, 2010.

S. Holbech-nielsen and S. Parsons, A Generalization of Dung???s Abstract Framework for Argumentation: Arguing with Sets of Attacking Arguments, Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Third International Workshop, pp.54-73, 2006.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-540-75526-5_4

E. Oikarinen and S. Woltran, Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, vol.175, issue.14-15, pp.14-151985, 2011.
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2011.06.003
URL : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2011.06.003

J. Pearl, Causality: models, reasoning and inference, 2000.
DOI : 10.1017/CBO9780511803161

R. Pino, P. , and C. Uzcátegui, Jumping to explanations versus jumping to conclusions, Artificial Intelligence, vol.111, issue.1-2, pp.131-169, 1999.
DOI : 10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00038-7

J. L. Pollock, Defeasible Reasoning, Cognitive Science, vol.13, issue.4, pp.481-518, 1987.
DOI : 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4

J. L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for how to Build a Person, 1995.

H. Prakken and G. A. Vreeswijk, Logics for Defeasible Argumentation, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2001.
DOI : 10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3

C. Teodor and . Przymusinski, The well-founded semantics coincides with the three-valued stable semantics, Fundamenta Informaticae, vol.13, issue.4, pp.445-463, 1990.

R. Reiter, A logic for default reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, vol.13, issue.1-2, pp.81-132, 1980.
DOI : 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4

T. Rienstra, Towards a probabilistic dung-style argumentation system, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Agreement Technologies, AT 2012 CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp.138-152, 2012.

N. Roos, Preferential model and argumentation semantics, Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, 2010.

D. Nicolás, M. O. Rotstein, M. A. Moguillansky, A. J. Falappa, G. R. García et al., Argument theory change: Revision upon warrant, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2008, pp.336-347, 2008.

D. Nicolás, M. O. Rotstein, A. J. Moguillansky, G. R. García, and . Simari, A dynamic argumentation framework, Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp.427-438, 2010.

C. Sakama, Abduction in Argumentation Frameworks and Its Use in Debate Games, Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Argument for Agreement and Assurance (AAA2013), 2013.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-10061-6_19

C. Sakama, Counterfactual reasoning in argumentation frameworks Computational Models of Argument -Proceedings of COMMA 2014, Atholl Palace Hotel, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol.266, pp.385-396, 2014.

Y. Shoham, A semantical approach to nonmonotic logics, Proceedings, Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp.22-25, 1987.

R. Guillermo, R. P. Simari, and . Loui, A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation, Artificial Intelligence, vol.53, pp.125-157, 1992.

R. Stalnaker, What is a nonmonotonic consequence relation? Fundamenta Informaticae, pp.7-21, 1994.

M. Thimm, A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation, ECAI 2012 - 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Including Prestigious Applications of Artificial Intelligence (PAIS-2012) System Demonstrations Track, pp.750-755, 2012.

B. Verheij, Two approaches to dialectical argumentation: admissible sets and argumentation stages, Proceedings of the Eighth Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC96), pp.357-368, 1996.

T. Wakaki, K. Nitta, and H. Sawamura, Computing Abductive Argumentation in Answer Set Programming, Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, 6th International Workshop, pp.195-215, 2009.
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_12

Y. Wu, M. Caminada, and D. M. Gabbay, Complete Extensions in Argumentation Coincide with 3-Valued Stable Models in Logic Programming, Studia Logica, vol.13, issue.4, pp.383-403, 2009.
DOI : 10.1080/11663081.1997.10510900