Let us consider ?, ? 1 , ? 2 , ? 3 ? ?, such that ? 1 ? ? 2 and ? 2 ? ? 3 , there are four cases ,
Due to E5 and U9 again, ))] = ? then using E5 and U9, ?(1, 2) = ?(1) = ?(1, 2, 3)? [(?(? 1 ) ? ?(? 3 ))], hence ? 1 ? ? ,
(? 1 ) |= ?(? 1 ), hence either ? 1 ,
? 1 ) ? ?(? 2 ))]. Due to E3, since (?, ? 1 ), (? 2 ))] = ? or ? 2 ? [?(?) Due to U1, ? 1 ? [?(?)? T ?(? 1 )]. Hence using E5 and U9, [?(?)? T (?(? 1 ) ? ?(? 2 )) ? ?(? 1 )] = [?(?)? T (?(? 1 )] = {?1}. Contradiction, hence ? 1 ? ? 2 ,
then t 1 indirectly defends the unique element of t 2 in (A, R) (which is denoted by (A, R) |= t 1 ~~ t 2 ) if and only if, ) |= (t 1 t 2 ) ? (?y ((t 1 y) ? (y ~~ t 2 ))) ,
U a set of authorized transitions, there exists an operator ? T satisfying E3, U4, E5, E8, U9 if and only if there is an assignment respecting T such that ?G ? ? U , ??, ? ? YALLA U , References [1] C. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change : partial meet contraction and revision functions, Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol.50, pp.510-530, 1985. ,
Extracting the Core of a Persuasion Dialog to Evaluate Its Quality, European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU), pp.59-70, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1145/545056.545103
Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks, Journal of Automated Reasoning, vol.29, issue.2, pp.125-169, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1023/A:1021603608656
Using arguments for making and explaining decisions, Artificial Intelligence, vol.173, issue.3-4, pp.413-436, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.artint.2008.11.006
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
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
What does it take to enforce an argument? minimal change in abstract argumentation, 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.127-132, 2012. ,
Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results The Netherlands, The Netherlands, Proceeding of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp.75-86, 2010. ,
Try to see it my way: Modelling persuasion in legal discourse, Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol.11, issue.10, pp.271-287, 1023. ,
Checking the acceptability of a set of arguments, 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning Proceedings, pp.59-64, 2004. ,
A logic-based theory of deductive arguments??????This is an extended version of a paper entitled ???Towards a logic-based theory of argumentation??? published in the Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'2000), Austin, TX, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000., Artificial Intelligence, vol.128, issue.1-2, pp.203-235, 2001. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00071-6
Change in argumentation systems: exploring the interest of removing an argument (regular paper), International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM), pp.2011-2023, 2011. ,
Duality between Addition and Removal, Advances on Computational Intelligence, pp.219-229, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-31709-5_23
Characterizing change in abstract argumentation systems, Trends in Belief Revision and Argumentation Dynamics, pp.75-102 ,
Florence Dupin de Saint-Cyr Bannay, and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. Enforcement in argumentation is a kind of update (regular paper) ,
Goal-driven changes in argumentation: A theoretical framework and a tool. (regular paper ), International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), pp.588-595, 2013. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01147300
Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Abstraction Principles and the Grounded Extension, 10th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, pp.107-118, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00866393
Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension, 8th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp.1213-1214, 2009. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00869957
Arguing for decisions: A qualitative model of decision making, Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp.98-105, 1996. ,
On the Outcomes of Multiparty Persuasion, Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'11), pp.47-54, 2011. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-33152-7_6
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01273221
A Logical Theory about Dynamics in Abstract Argumentation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.8078, pp.148-161, 2013. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_12
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-00863487
Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol.38, pp.49-84, 2010. ,
Prioritized transitions for updates, ECSQARU, pp.142-150, 1995. ,
On the revision of argumentation systems: Minimal change of argument statuses, International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR) ,
A Translation-Based Approach for Revision of Argumentation Frameworks, Logics in Artificial Intelligence, pp.397-411, 2014. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_28
Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJ- CAI), pp.2876-2882, 2015. ,
Constrained argumentation frameworks, Proc. of KR, pp.112-122, 2006. ,
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00121160
An extension-based approach to belief revision in abstract argumentation, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.2926-2932, 2015. ,
A Dynamic Logic Framework for Abstract Argumentation, International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp.62-71, 2014. ,
Update postulates without inertia (regular paper) In Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, number 946 in LNAI, pp.162-170, 1995. ,
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. ,
Decision making by intelligent agents: logical argument, probabilistic inference and the maintenance of beliefs and acts, 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pp.293-301, 2002. ,
Automated planning: theory and practice, 2004. ,
Audience-based uncertainty in abstract argument games, IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2013. ,
Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues, Proceedings of the Twenty- Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2013), pp.164-170, 2013. ,
On updates with integrity constraints In Belief Change in Rational Agents, 2005. ,
Propositional belief base update and minimal change, Artificial Intelligence, vol.115, issue.1, pp.107-138, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00072-7
Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system, Information Systems, vol.26, issue.4, pp.259-277, 2001. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0306-4379(01)00020-5
On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it, Proc. of the 2 nd Inter. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp.387-394, 1991. ,
DOI : 10.1017/CBO9780511526664.007
Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change, Artificial Intelligence, vol.52, issue.3, pp.263-294, 1991. ,
DOI : 10.1016/0004-3702(91)90069-V
Mathematical Logic, 1967. ,
A glance at revision and updating in knowledge bases, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol.57, issue.1, pp.1-27, 1994. ,
DOI : 10.1002/int.4550090103
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
Argument theory change through defeater activation The Netherlands, The Netherlands, Proceeding of the 2010 conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), pp.359-366, 2010. ,
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
Group persuasion through uncertain audience modelling, Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA 2012, pp.350-357, 2012. ,
Arguing Using Opponent Models, Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, 6th International Workshop, pp.160-174, 2009. ,
DOI : 10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_10
Formal systems for persuasion dialogue, The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol.21, issue.02, pp.163-188, 2006. ,
DOI : 10.1017/S0269888906000865
Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation, IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2013. ,
Argument theory change: Revision upon warrant, Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Computational Models of Argument, pp.336-347, 2008. ,
Classification and strategical issues of argumentation games on structured argumentation frameworks, 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010), pp.1247-1254, 2010. ,
Public announcements, public assignments and the complexity of their logic, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, vol.22, issue.3, pp.249-273, 2012. ,
A logic of argumentation for specification and verification of abstract argumentation frameworks, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol.1, issue.2, pp.1-4199, 2012. ,
DOI : 10.1007/s10472-012-9318-6
URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01076597
Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. SUNY series in Logic and Language, 1995. ,
Reasoning about action using a possible models approach, Proc. of the 7 th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp.89-93, 1988. ,
Updating Logical Databases, 1990. ,
DOI : 10.1017/CBO9780511663109
On the meta-logic of arguments, Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems , AAMAS '05, pp.560-567, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1145/1082473.1082558
Argument rejection and acceptance through attack abstractions, 2013. Séminaire " Belief Change and Argumentation in Multi-Agent Scenarios, Schloss Dagstuhl -Leibniz Center for Informatics ,