In this paper, we address the problem of change in an abstract argumentation system. We focus on a particular change: the addition of a new argument which interacts with previous arguments. We study the impact of such an addition on the outcome of the argumentation system, more particularly on the set of its extensions. Several properties for this change operation are defined by comparing the new set of extensions to the initial one, these properties are called structural when the comparisons are based on set-cardinality or set-inclusion relations. Several other properties are proposed where comparisons are based on the status of some particular arguments: the accepted arguments; these properties refer to the evolution of this status during the change, e.g., Monotony and Priority to Recency. All these properties may be more or less desirable according to specific applications. They are studied under two particular semantics: the grounded and preferred semantics

International audienceThis article proposes a complete framework for handling the dynamics of an abstract argumentation system. This frame can encompass several belief bases under the form of several argumentation systems, more precisely it is possible to express and study how an agent who has her own argumentation system can interact on a target argumentation system (that may represent a state of knowledge at a given stage of a debate). The two argumentation systems are defined inside a reference argumentation system called the universe which constitutes a kind of “common language”. This paper establishes three main results. First, we show that change in argumentation in such a framework can be seen as a particular case of belief update. Second, we have introduced a new logical language called YALLA in which the structure of an argumentation system can be encoded, enabling to express all the basic notions of argumentation theory (defense, conflict-freeness, extensions) by formulae of YALLA. Third, due to previous works about dynamics in argumentation we have been in position to provide a set of new properties that are specific for argumentation update

This article studies a specific kind of change in an argumentation system: the removal of an argument and its interactions. We illustrate this operation in a legal context and we establish the conditions to obtain some desirable properties when removing an argument.

In the literature, enforcement consists in changing an argumentation system in order to force it to accept a given set of arguments. In this paper, we extend this notion by allowing incomplete information about the initial argumentation system. Generalized enforcement is an operation that maps a propositional formula describing a system and a propositional formula that describes a goal, to a new formula describing the possible resulting systems. This is done under some constraints about the allowed changes. We give a set of postulates restraining the class of enforcement operators and provide a representation theorem linking them to a family of proximity relations on argumentation systems.