. .. Quality-of-enforcement,

, 7.4.2 Propositional Encoding of Constraint Enforcement Operators, p.135

.. .. Conclusion,

, AF

, ? 1 ? Ext ? (AF ) and ? 2 ? Ext ? (AF )

, Case 1 If ? 1 ? Ext ? (AF )

, Ext ? (AF ? form ? (? 1 , ? 2 )) = {? 2 } holds. Therefore, ? 1 AF ? 2 since neither ? 1 ? Ext ? (AF ) nor ? 1 ? Ext ? (AF ? form ? (? 1 , ? 2 )) hold, Case 2 If ? 1 ? Ext ? (AF ) and ? 2 ? Ext ? (AF )

, Ext ? (AF ? form ? (? 1 , ? 2 , ? 3 )) is a non-empty subset of {? 1, Case 3 If ? 1 ? Ext ? (AF ) and ? 2 ? Ext ? (AF ), then since ? satisfies (AE1) and (AE3)

, Ext ? (AF ?form ? (? 1 , ? 2 , ? 3 ))?{? 2 , ? 3 } = Ext ? (AF ?form ? (? 2 , ? 3 )) = {? 3 } which is in contradiction with the fact that ? 2 ? AF ? 3 and ? 2 ? Ext ? (AF ). So this case is impossible. (2) Suppose that Ext ? (AF ? form ? (? 1 , ? 2 , ? 3 )) ? {? 1 , ? 2 } = ?. Since ? 1 ? AF ? 2 and ? 1 ? Ext ? (AF ), ? 1 ? Ext ? (AF ?form ? (? 1 , ? 2 )) holds. From (AE5) and (AE6), Ext ? (AF ?form ? (? 1 , ? 2 , ? 3 ))? {? 1 , ? 2 } = Ext ? (AF ? form ? (? 1 , ? 2 )) holds, = {? 3 } (because from (AE1) and (AE3) it is a non-empty subset of {? 1 , ? 2 , ? 3 }), and from (AE5) and (AE6)

, Ext ? (AF ? form ? (? 1 , ? 2 , ? 3 )) ? {? 1 , ? 3 } = Ext ? (AF ? form ?, ? {? 1 , ? 2 } = ?, from (AE5) and (AE6)

, Let us now show that associating this a pre-order with an argumentation framework is a faithful assignment. 1. Given an argumentation system AF = A, R , let ? 1 , ? 2 be two elements in P (A) such that ? 1 ? Ext ? (AF ) and ? 2 ? Ext ? (AF )

, Like previously, ? 1 ? AF ? 2 holds. Moreover, now ? 2 ? Ext ? (AF ) holds. From this and (AE2), Ext ? (AF ? form ? (? 1 , ? 2 )) = {? 1 } holds, Given an argumentation system AF = A, R , let ? 1

. Proof, Let ? be a propositional formula over the set of variables {x 1

, If in addition we have AF ? ?| ? gr y, then it must be the case that Ext gr (AF ) = ?. Then, from (AE3), it must be the case that ? is inconsistent, which implies that ? is inconsistent. Conversely, if ? is consistent, then ? is inconsistent as well, From (AE1), it must be the case that AF ? ?| ? gr ?, hence we must have AF ? ?| ? gr ¬y

. .. Digraph, 10 1.2 Inclusion between Dung

, An Argumentation Framework with Non-Matching Semantics

;. Graphical and Y. .. John, , vol.21

;. Graphical and P. .. John, , p.22

, 27 2.2 Revision of K by ? through a System of Spheres centered on, p.33

, Minimal Models of ? with respect to ? ?

, The Argumentation Framework F 1 and Different Possible Expansions of it, p.50

. .. Strong-enforcement-process,

, Enforcing {a 1 } in F 8 is impossible with weak expansion, while F 9 is a succesful strong enforcement

, The Result of an Intervention on the Causal Bayesian Network

, The Argumentation Framework after an Intervention

, Two Possible Explanations for the Observation

, The Input Framework F 1 and the Revising Framework F

, The Result of the Removed Set-based Revision

. .. F-k-;-f, 65 3.15 The k(st)-model F ? of F and its Stable Kernel, the Stable Kernel of

, The Argumentation Frameworks F 1 and F

, The k(gr)-expansion F 1 + k(gr) F 2

, 99 5.2 Schematic Explanation of the Revision Process, The k(st)-revision F 1 ? k(str) F

, 7 The Revised Argumentation Framework F ? acc d ?

, Two Possible Results of the Argument-Fixed Enforcement

, Average Time for Strong (×-curve) and Strict Argument-Fixed (+-curve)

, Average Time, n = 200, m Varying from 1 to 70

, Strict Argument-Fixed (+-curve) and Non-Strict Argument-Fixed (?-curve) Enforcement, Average Change for Strong (×-curve)

, The Semantics Dependence Graph of ?

A. , The Non Oriented Graph G 1

A. ,

A. , Schematic Representation of the Polynomial Hierarchy

, One of the revised frameworks from AF 18 ? ? 7

, Complexity of Inference Problems for the Usual Semantics

, Hamming Distance between the Models of ? and the Possible Models after the Change . 37 2.2 Semantics of Program Connectives in DL-PA

S. Useful and D. .. Programs,

S. Useful and D. .. Formulae,

?. , ?. )-characteristics, and .. .. ,

. .. , Rounded at 10 ?2 s, for Non-Strict Strong and Strict ArgumentFixed Enforcement, for n ? {300, 400, 500}, Average Computing Times

, 137 7.2 Summary of Existing Approaches of Change in Argumentation, Summary of Existing Approaches of Change in Argumentation, p.137, 2014.

, A.1 Truth Table of the Negation

, Truth Table of the Binary Connectives

?. .. , 147 A.4 The Transition Function ? for the Turing Machine M, A.3 Truth Table of formula ? for the interpretations ? and ?

L. Amgoud and J. Ben-naim, « Ranking-Based Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2013), p.128, 2013.

A. Leila and C. Cayrol, « Inferring from Inconsistency in PreferenceBased Argumentation Frameworks, International Journal of Automated Reasoning, vol.29, issue.2, p.126, 2002.

L. Amgoud and C. C. , A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol.34, issue.1-3, p.127, 2002.

. Ofer, W. A. Martin, and . Caminada, « A QBF-Based Formalization of Abstract Argumentation Semantics, Journal of Applied Logic, vol.11, issue.2, pp.229-252, 2013.

A. Leila, D. Yannis, and P. M. , Making Decisions through Preference-Based Argumentation, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), vol.2, pp.8-21, 2008.

C. E. Alchourrón, G. Peter, and D. ,

, « On The Logic Of Theory Change : Partial Meet Contraction And Revision Functions, vol.50, p.133, 1985.

A. Leila and H. Nabil, « An Argumentation-Based Approach for Dialog Move Selection, Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, pp.128-141, 2006.

C. E. Alchourrón and D. Makinson, « On the Logic of Theory Change: Contraction Functions and their associated revision functions, Theoria, vol.48, p.31, 1982.

A. Leila and P. Henri, « Using Arguments for Making and Explaining Decisions, Artificial Intelligence, vol.173, pp.413-436, 2009.

A. Leila and V. Srdjan, « Revising Option Status in Argument-Based Decision Systems, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol.5, issue.22, pp.1019-1058, 2012.

B. Ringo and . What, Does it Take to Enforce an Argument? Minimal Change in abstract Argumentation, Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2012), vol.13, p.137, 2012.

R. Baumann and G. B. , Expanding Argumentation Frameworks: Enforcing and Monotonicity Results, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), p.137, 2010.

R. Baumann and G. Brewka, « AGM Meets Abstract Argumentation: Expansion and Revision for Dung Frameworks, Proceedings of the 24th Internation Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), 2015. 5 citations pages, vol.65, p.137

J. M. Trevor and . Bench-capon, « Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR'02), vol.126, p.127, 2002.

J. M. Trevor and . Bench-capon, « Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol.13, issue.3, p.127, 2003.

B. Pierre, C. Claudette, F. Dupin-de, . Saint-cyr, and L. Mariechristine, Change in Argumentation Systems: Exploring the Interest of Removing an Argument, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2011), p.107, 2011.

B. Pierre, C. Claudette, F. Dupin-de, and M. Saint-cyr,

, Enforcement in Argumentation Is a Kind of Update, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2013), vol.107, p.137, 2013.

B. Pietro, C. Martin, and M. Giacomin, « An Introduction to Argumentation Semantics, Knowledge Engineering Review, vol.26, issue.4, p.126, 2011.

B. Richard, C. Martin, P. Mikolaj, and R. Iyad, « Quantifying Disagreement in Argument-Based Reasoning, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AA-MAS 2012), p.86, 2012.

P. Besnard and S. D. , Checking the Acceptability of a Set of Arguments, Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), vol.12, p.135, 2004.

B. Philippe, D. Sylvie, and A. Herzig, « Encoding Argument Graphs in Logic, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (IPMU'14), vol.2, p.108, 2014.

B. Anton, D. Daniel, H. Marijn, and M. Järvisalo, Proceedings of SAT Competition, p.157, 2014.

P. Baroni and G. Massimiliano, « On Principle-Based Evaluation of Extension-Based Argumentation Semantics, Artificial Intelligence, vol.171, issue.10, p.126, 2007.

P. Baroni and G. Massimiliano, Semantics of Abstract Argument Systems, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, p.126, 2009.

R. Booth, D. M. Gabbay, K. Souhila, R. Tjitze, W. N. Leendert et al., « Abduction and Dialogical Proof in Argumentation and Logic Programming, Proceedings of the Twenty-First European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2014), p.121, 2014.

P. Besnard and A. Hunter, « A Logic-Based Theory of Deductive Arguments, Artificial Intelligence, vol.128, issue.1-2, p.137, 2001.

P. Besnard and A. Hunter, Elements of Argumentation, p.137, 2008.

B. Philippe, H. Andreas, and N. Troquard, « Dynamic Logic of Propositional Assignments: A Well-Behaved Variant of PDL, Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2013), pp.143-152, 2013.

B. Chitta, K. Sarit, and J. Minker, « Combining Multiple Knowledge Bases, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol.3, issue.2, p.80, 1991.

B. Chitta, K. Sarit, M. Jack, and V. S. Subrahmanian, « Combining Knowledge Bases Consisting of First-Order Theories, Computational Intelligence, vol.8, issue.1, p.80, 1992.

B. Richard, K. Souhila, R. Tjitze, L. Van-der, and T. , A Logical Theory about Dynamics in Abstract Argumentation, Seventh International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2013), vol.85, p.137, 2013.

B. Guido, K. Souhila, L. Van-der, and T. , « Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Abstraction Principles and the Grounded Extension, Proceedings of the Tenth European Conferences on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2009), vol.7, p.127, 2009.

B. Guido, K. Souhila, L. Van-der, and T. , « Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Attack Refinement and the Grounded Extension, Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagents Systems (AAMAS 2009), p.127, 2009.

E. Bonzon and N. M. , On the Outcomes of Multiparty Persuasion, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2011), p.140, 2011.
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01273221

B. Elise, M. Nicolas, and S. M. , Games for Abstract Argumentation, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA'14), vol.2, p.23, 2014.

G. Brewka and W. Stefan, « Abstract Dialectical Frameworks, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010), p.126, 2010.

C. Martin, On the Issue of Reinstatement in Argumentation, Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2006), p.126, 2006.

C. Martin, « Comparing Two Unique Extension Semantics for Formal Argumentation: Ideal and Eager, Proceedings of the Nineteenth Belgian-Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC 2007), p.11, 2007.

C. Manuel, D. Francisco, E. Steven, L. Patrick, M. Narciso et al., The Maude System, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA 1999), p.57, 1999.

C. Marco, F. M. Donini, L. Paolo, and M. Schaerf, « The Size of a Revised Knowledge Base, Artificial Intelligence, vol.115, issue.1, p.84, 1999.

C. Sylvie, D. Caroline, and P. Marquis, « Symmetric Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU 2005, p.16, 2005.

C. Sylvie, D. Caroline, and P. Marquis, « Constrained Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), vol.4, p.129, 2006.

C. Claudette, F. Dupin-de, and M. Saint-cyr, « Change in Abstract Argumentation Frameworks: Adding an Argument, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol.38, p.137, 2010.

C. Thomas, K. Sébastien, and P. Marquis, « Contraction in Propositional Logic, Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2015), 2015.

C. Cayrol and M. , « Graduality in Argumentation », Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), vol.23, p.128, 2005.

C. Julien and L. Jean, « Belief Revision-Based Case-Based Reasoning, Workshop on Similarity and Analogy-based Methods in Artificial Intelligence (SAMAI 2012), p.97, 2012.

C. Cayrol and M. , On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU 2005, vol.2, p.127, 2005.

C. Sylvie, C. D. Sébastien, K. Mariechristine, L. , and P. M. , On the Merging of Dung's Argumentation Systems, Artificial Intelligence, vol.171, pp.730-753, 2007.

C. Sylvie, K. Sébastien, M. Jean-guy, and P. M. , On the Revision of Argumentation Systems: Minimal Change of Arguments Status, Second International Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation (TAFA 2013), 2013. workshop at IJCAI 2013

C. Sylvie, K. Sébastien, M. Jean-guy, and P. Marquis, « Révision de systèmes d'argumentation : changement minimal du statut des arguments, Septièmes Journées d'Intelligence Artificielle Fondamentale (IAF 2013), pp.107-116, 2013.

C. Sylvie, K. Sébastien, M. Jean-guy, and P. Marquis, « Approche par traduction pour la révision de systèmes d'argumentation, Huitièmes Journées d'Intelligence Artificielle Fondamentale (IAF 2014), pp.77-85, 2014.

C. Sylvie, K. Sébastien, M. Jean-guy, and P. M. , On the Revision of Argumentation Systems: Minimal Change of Arguments Statuses, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2014), vol.4, p.137, 2014.

C. Sylvie, K. Sébastien, M. Jean-guy, and P. Marquis, « A Translation-based Approach for Revision of Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2014), p.137, 2014.

C. Sylvie, K. Sébastien, M. Jean-guy, and P. Marquis, « Forçage d'extension en argumentation abstraite par optimisation booléenne, Neuvièmes Journées d'Intelligence Artificielle Fondamentale, 2015.

C. Sylvie, K. Sébastien, M. Jean-guy, and P. Marquis, « Extension Enforcement in Abstract Argumentation as an Optimization Problem, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), vol.2, p.137, 2015.

A. Stephen and . Cook, The Complexity of Theorem-Proving Procedures, Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, p.157, 1971.

D. Mukesh, « Investigations into a Theory of Knowledge Base Revision: Preliminary Report, Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'88), vol.2, p.101, 1988.

P. E. Dunne, D. Wolfgang, L. Thomas, and S. Woltran, « Characteristics of Multiple Viewpoints in Abstract Argumentation, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2014), vol.7, p.139, 2014.

D. Martin, H. Adrian, L. Thomas, R. Stefan, and S. Woltran, « An Extension-Based Approach to Belief Revision in Abstract Argumentation, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), vol.5, p.137, 2015.

D. Sylvie, H. Andreas, and L. P. , Dynamic Logic Framework for Abstract Argumentation, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2014), vol.9, p.137, 2014.

D. Wolfgang, J. Matti, J. Peter, W. , and S. Woltran, , 2011.

D. Wolfgang, J. Matti, J. Peter, W. , and S. Woltran, « Complexity-Sensitive Decision Procedures for Abstract Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, vol.206, pp.53-78, 2014.

D. Jérôme, K. Sébastien, and S. V. , On the Aggregation of Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), vol.2, p.140, 2015.

D. Phan-minh, M. Paolo, and F. T. , « Computing ideal sceptical argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, vol.171, issue.10-15, p.11, 2007.

P. E. Dunne, M. Pierre, and M. Wooldridge, « Argument Aggregation: Basic Axioms and Complexity Results, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012), p.140, 2012.

D. Jon, Reason Maintenance and Belief Revision -Foundations vs. Coherence Theories, Belief Revision, p.69, 1992.

P. James, . Delgrande, and P. Pavlos, « Revising Horn Theories, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), p.93, 2011.

D. Sylvie and P. Laurent, « On Enforcing a Constraint in Argumentation, Proceedings of the Eleventh European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS'13), 2013.

P. Minh and D. , On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n-Person Games, Artificial Intelligence, vol.77, issue.2, p.128, 1995.

A. Del and V. , Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Belief Revision: Syntactic, Semantic, Foundational, and Coherence Approaches, vol.7, p.69, 1997.

P. E. Dunne and M. Wooldridge, Complexity of Abstract Argumentation, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, p.16, 2009.

W. Dvo?ák and W. Stefan, « On the Intertranslatability of Argumentation Semantics, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol.41, issue.2, p.137, 2011.

E. Uwe and W. Stefan, « Reasoning in Argumentation Frameworks Using Quantified Boolean Formulas, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2006), vol.2, p.139, 2006.

F. Eduardo, « Revising the AGM Postulates, 1999.

M. A. Falappa, G. Kern-isberner, G. Ricardo, and S. Explanations, Belief Revision and Defeasible Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, vol.141, issue.1, p.62, 2002.

F. Ronald, G. M. Kuper, J. D. Ullman, and M. Y. Vardi, Updating Logical Databases, Advances in Computing Research, vol.3, p.80, 1986.

D. F. Kenneth, Introducing Actions into Qualitative Simulation, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1989), p.39, 1989.

G. Peter, Knowledge In Flux, vol.3, p.75, 1988.

M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, 1979.

D. Grossi and M. Sanjay, « On the Graded Acceptability of Arguments, Proceedings of the 24th Internation Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015), p.128, 2015.

D. Gabbay and R. Odinaldo, « A Numerical Approach to the Merging of Argumentation Networks, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA 2012), p.140, 2012.

G. Adam, « Two Modellings for Theory Change », Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol.17, issue.2, p.35, 1988.

G. Dov, R. Odinaldo, and A. Russo, « Revision by Translation, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (IPMU 98), volume Information, p.97, 1998.

S. Gabbriellini and P. T. Ms-dialogues, Persuading and Getting Persuaded, A Model of Social Network Debates that Reconciles Arguments and Trust, Tenth International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, 2013.

W. Richard and . Hamming, Error Detecting and Error Correcting Codes, Bell System Technical Journal, vol.29, issue.2, p.173, 1950.

A. H. , Belief Change Operations: A Short History of Nearly Everything, Told in Dynamic Logic of Propositional Assignments, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, p.40, 2014.

A. Herzig, L. Emiliano, M. Frédéric, and N. Troquard,

«. Dynamic, Logic of Normative Systems, Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), p.25, 2011.

. Ibm,

«. Ibm-ilog, CPLEX Optimization Studio: Optimization model development toolkit for mathematical and constraint programming, 2014.

M. Richard and . Karp, Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems, Proceedings of a symposium on the Complexity of Computer Computations, p.158, 1972.

K. Dionysios, B. Elise, M. Nicolas, P. Alan, L. Van-der et al., « Rewriting Rules for the Computation of GoalOriented Changes in an Argumentation System, Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA 2013), vol.55, p.140, 2013.

K. Dionysios, B. Elise, M. Nicolas, and P. Moraitis, « Empirical Evaluation of Strategies for Multiparty Argumentative Debates, Fifteenth International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA 2014), pp.105-122, 2014.

K. Sarit, D. J. Lehmann, and M. Magidor, « Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Preferential Models and Cumulative Logics, Artificial Intelligence, vol.44, issue.1-2, pp.1-55, 1990.

H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon, Propositional Knowledge Base Revision and Minimal Change, Artificial Intelligence, vol.52, p.133, 1991.

H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon, On the Difference between Updating a Knowledge Base and Revising it, Belief Revision, vol.33, p.134, 1992.

K. Antonis, M. Nicolas, and P. Moraitis, « Layered Strategies and Protocols for Argumentation-Based Agent Interaction, Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Argumentation in MultiAgent Systems, pp.66-79, 2004.

K. Sébastien, On the Difference between Merging Knowledge Bases and Combining Them, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), vol.2, p.140, 2000.

K. Sébastien, P. Ramón, and . Pérez, On the Logic of Merging, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1998), p.140, 1998.

K. Sébastien, P. Ramón, and . Pérez, Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 1999), vol.2, p.140, 1999.

L. Jean-marie, L. Emmanuel, J. , and M. Coquiaas, Applications de la programmation par contraintes à l'argumentation abstraite, Onzièmes Journées Francophones de la Programmation par Contraintes (JPFC 2015), p.139, 2015.

L. Jean-marie, L. Emmanuel, J. , and M. Coquiaas, A Constraint-based Quick Abstract Argumentation Solver, Twenty-seventh IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, p.139, 2015.

L. Jean-marie, L. Emmanuel, J. , and M. Coquiaas, Applications of Constraint Programming to Abstract Argumentation, First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation, p.139, 2015.

J. Daniel, . Lehmann, and M. Menachem, « What does a Conditional Knowledge Base Entail?, Artificial Intelligence, vol.55, issue.1, p.55, 1992.

J. Mailly, Master thesis, in french. English title: Revision of Argumentation Frameworks, Révision de Systèmes d'Argumentation, p.138, 2012.

M. Jean-guy, Revising Argumentation Systems: Argument Status Versus Graph Minimization, ACAI Summer School, 2013.

N. Samer, A. Katie, and P. E. Dunne, Algorithms for Decision Problems in Argument Systems under Preferred Semantics, Artificial Intelligence, vol.207, p.108, 2014.

N. Bernhard, How Hard is it to Revise a Belief Base? In Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, Belief Change, vol.3, p.84, 1998.

J. Carlos, N. Mauricio, O. , and U. Cortés, Workshop at Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasonning, pp.114-124, 2007.

N. Farid and R. Vincent, « Argumentation Frameworks with Necessities, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM 2011), p.127, 2011.

N. Farid and W. Eric, « Removed Set-Based Revision of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2014), vol.2, p.137, 2014.

E. Oikarinen and W. Stefan, « Characterizing Strong Equivalence for Argumentation Frameworks, Artificial Intelligence, vol.175, pp.14-15, 1985.

P. Odile, Complete Revision Function in Propositional Calculus, Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (ECAI 1992), p.63, 1992.

C. H. Papadimitriou, Computational Complexity, 1994.

P. Judea, Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference, p.53, 2009.

Q. I. Guilin, L. Weiru, and D. A. Bell, Knowledge Base Revision in Description Logics, Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2006), p.75, 2006.

R. Raymond, Logic for Default Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence, vol.13, issue.1-2, pp.81-132, 1980.

R. Tjitze, « Argumentation in Flux: Modelling Change in the Theory of Argumentation, vol.3, p.137, 2014.

L. J. Stockmeyer, « The Polynomial-Time Hierarchy, Theoretical Computer Science, vol.3, issue.1, p.155, 1976.

T. Alfred and . Fundamentale, Begriffe der Methodologie der Deduktiven Wissenschaften, Monatshefte Fur Mathematik, vol.37, p.149, 1930.

F. A. Tohmé, G. Adrian, B. , G. Ricardo, and S. , « Aggregation of Attack Relations: A Social-Choice Theoretical Analysis of Defeasibility Criteria, Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems, 5th International Symposium, p.140, 2008.

T. Stephen, The Use of Argument, 1958.

G. Samuilovich and T. , On the Complexity of Derivation in Propositional Calculus, Structures in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II, Seminars in Mathematics (translated from Russian), p.147, 1968.

A. Mathison and T. , On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. Second Series, vol.42, p.151, 1936.

M. Thimm and S. Villata, « First International Competition on Computational Models of Argumentation (ICCMA'15), p.139, 2015.

V. Serena, B. Guido, L. Van-der, and T. , « Attack Semantics for Abstract Argumentation, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), p.56, 2011.

W. Marianne, « Reasoning about Action Using a Possible Models Approach, Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1988), pp.89-93, 1988.

W. Eric, J. Robert, and O. Papini, « Revision: an Application in the Framework of GIS, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), p.63, 2000.

R. Ronald, . Yager, and . On, Ordered Weighted Averaging Aggregation Operators in MultiCriteria Decision Making, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol.18, p.83, 1988.