{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,29]],"date-time":"2026-04-29T03:47:45Z","timestamp":1777434465792,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":67,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2018,10,17]],"date-time":"2018-10-17T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1539734400000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["journals.sagepub.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Argument &amp; Computation"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2018,11,12]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>This paper addresses the issue of the dynamic enforcement of a constraint in an argumentation system. The system consists in (1) an argumentation framework, made up, notably, of a set of arguments and of an attack relation, (2) an evaluation semantics, and (3) the evaluation result, computed from (1) and (2). An agent may want another agent to consider a new attack, or to have a given argument accepted, or even to relax the definition of the semantics. A constraint on any of the three components is thus defined, and it has to be enforced in the system. The enforcement may result in changes on components of the system. The paper surveys existing approaches for the dynamic enforcement of a constraint and its consequences, and reveals challenging enforcement cases that remain to be investigated.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3233\/aac-180425","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2018,10,19]],"date-time":"2018-10-19T10:16:31Z","timestamp":1539944191000},"page":"223-248","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/sage-journals-update-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":38,"title":["Constraints and changes: A survey of abstract argumentation dynamics"],"prefix":"10.1177","volume":"9","author":[{"given":"Sylvie","family":"Doutre","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"IRIT, Universit\u00e9 Toulouse 1 Capitole, France. E-mail:\u00a0"}]},{"given":"Jean-Guy","family":"Mailly","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"LIPADE, Universit\u00e9 Paris Descartes, France. E-mail:\u00a0"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2018,10,17]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref001","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2307\/2274239"},{"key":"ref002","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"G.\u00a0Alfano, S.\u00a0Greco and F.\u00a0Parisi, Efficient computation of extensions for dynamic abstract argumentation frameworks: An incremental approach, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017, Melbourne, Australia, August 19\u201325, 2017, pp.\u00a049\u201355.","DOI":"10.24963\/ijcai.2017\/8"},{"key":"ref003","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"L.\u00a0Amgoud and J.\u00a0Ben-Naim, Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks, in: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM\u201913), Springer, 2013, pp.\u00a0134\u2013147.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-40381-1_11"},{"key":"ref004","unstructured":"L.\u00a0Amgoud and J.\u00a0Ben-Naim, Axiomatic foundations of acceptability semantics, in: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference, KR 2016, Cape Town, South Africa, April 25\u201329, 2016, pp.\u00a02\u201311, 2016."},{"key":"ref005","unstructured":"L.\u00a0Amgoud and J.\u00a0Ben-Naim, Evaluation of arguments from support relations: Axioms and semantics, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2016, 9\u201315 July, 2016, New York, NY, USA, pp.\u00a0900\u2013906, 2016."},{"key":"ref006","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1023\/A:1014490210693"},{"key":"ref007","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"P.\u00a0Balbiani, A.\u00a0Herzig and N.\u00a0Troquard, Dynamic logic of propositional assignments: A well-behaved variant of PDL, in: Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM\/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 2013), 2013, pp.\u00a0143\u2013152.","DOI":"10.1109\/LICS.2013.20"},{"key":"ref008","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1017\/S0269888911000166"},{"key":"ref009","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.artint.2007.04.004"},{"key":"ref010","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.artint.2014.03.003"},{"key":"ref011","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"P.\u00a0Baroni, A.\u00a0Rago and F.\u00a0Toni, How many properties do we need for gradual argumentation? in: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI\u201918), 2018.","DOI":"10.1609\/aaai.v32i1.11544"},{"key":"ref012","unstructured":"R.\u00a0Baumann, What does it take to enforce an argument? Minimal change in abstract argumentation, in: Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2012), 2012, pp.\u00a0127\u2013132."},{"key":"ref013","unstructured":"R.\u00a0Baumann, Context-free and context-sensitive kernels: Update and deletion equivalence in abstract argumentation, in: ECAI 2014\u00a0\u2013 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2014, pp.\u00a063\u201368."},{"key":"ref014","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"R.\u00a0Baumann and G.\u00a0Brewka, Expanding argumentation frameworks: Enforcing and monotonicity results, in: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA\u201910), 2010, pp.\u00a075\u201386.","DOI":"10.3233\/978-1-60750-619-5-75"},{"key":"ref015","unstructured":"R.\u00a0Baumann and G.\u00a0Brewka, AGM meets abstract argumentation: Expansion and revision for dung frameworks, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI\u201915), 2015."},{"key":"ref016","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/logcom\/13.3.429"},{"key":"ref017","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0004-3702(01)00071-6"},{"key":"ref018","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"P.\u00a0Besnard and A.\u00a0Hunter, Elements of Argumentation, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2008.","DOI":"10.7551\/mitpress\/9780262026437.001.0001"},{"key":"ref019","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"P.\u00a0Bisquert, C.\u00a0Cayrol, F.\u00a0Dupin de Saint-Cyr and M.C.\u00a0Lagasquie-Schiex, Change in argumentation systems: Exploring the interest of removing an argument, in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM\u201911), 2011, pp.\u00a0275\u2013288. doi:10.1007\/978-3-642-23963-2_22.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-23963-2_22"},{"key":"ref020","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"P.\u00a0Bisquert, C.\u00a0Cayrol, F.\u00a0Dupin de Saint-Cyr and M.C.\u00a0Lagasquie-Schiex, Enforcement in argumentation is a kind of update, in: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM\u201913), 2013, pp.\u00a030\u201343.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-40381-1_3"},{"key":"ref021","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"G.\u00a0Boella, S.\u00a0Kaci and L.\u00a0van der Torre, Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Abstraction principles and the grounded extension, in: Proceedings of the Tenth European Conferences on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2009), 2009, pp.\u00a0107\u2013118. doi:10.1007\/978-3-642-02906-6_11.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-02906-6_11"},{"key":"ref022","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"G.\u00a0Boella, S.\u00a0Kaci and L.\u00a0van der Torre, Dynamics in argumentation with single extensions: Attack refinement and the grounded extension, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagents Systems (AAMAS 2009), 2009, pp.\u00a01213\u20131214.","DOI":"10.65109\/KKOG4162"},{"key":"ref023","unstructured":"E.\u00a0Bonzon, J.\u00a0Delobelle, S.\u00a0Konieczny and N.\u00a0Maudet, A comparative study of ranking-based semantics for abstract argumentation, in: Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, February 12\u201317, 2016, 2016, pp.\u00a0914\u2013920."},{"key":"ref024","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"R.\u00a0Booth, S.\u00a0Kaci, T.\u00a0Rienstra and L.\u00a0van der Torre, A logical theory about dynamics in abstract argumentation, in: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM\u201913), Springer, 2013, pp.\u00a0148\u2013161.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-40381-1_12"},{"key":"ref025","unstructured":"G.\u00a0Brewka and S.\u00a0Woltran, Abstract dialectical frameworks, in: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR\u201910), 2010."},{"key":"ref026","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"M.\u00a0Caminada, On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation, in: Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA\u201906), Springer, 2006, pp.\u00a0111\u2013123.","DOI":"10.1007\/11853886_11"},{"key":"ref027","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s11225-009-9218-x"},{"key":"ref028","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1613\/jair.2965"},{"key":"ref029","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"C.\u00a0Cayrol and M.C.\u00a0Lagasquie-Schiex, On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks, in: Proceedings of the Eight European Conferences on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU\u201905), Springer, 2005, pp.\u00a0378\u2013389. doi:10.1007\/11518655_33.","DOI":"10.1007\/11518655_33"},{"key":"ref030","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1145\/876638.876643"},{"key":"ref031","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.artint.2007.04.012"},{"key":"ref032","unstructured":"S.\u00a0Coste-Marquis, C.\u00a0Devred and P.\u00a0Marquis, Constrained argumentation frameworks, in: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR\u201906, 2006, pp.\u00a0112\u2013122."},{"key":"ref033","unstructured":"S.\u00a0Coste-Marquis, S.\u00a0Konieczny, J.G.\u00a0Mailly and P.\u00a0Marquis, On the revision of argumentation systems: Minimal change of arguments statuses, in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR\u201914), 2014."},{"key":"ref034","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"S.\u00a0Coste-Marquis, S.\u00a0Konieczny, J.G.\u00a0Mailly and P.\u00a0Marquis, A translation-based approach for revision of argumentation frameworks, in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA\u201914), 2014, pp.\u00a0397\u2013411.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-11558-0_28"},{"key":"ref035","unstructured":"S.\u00a0Coste-Marquis, S.\u00a0Konieczny, J.G.\u00a0Mailly and P.\u00a0Marquis, Extension enforcement in abstract argumentation as an optimization problem, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI\u201915), 2015, pp.\u00a02876\u20132882."},{"key":"ref036","unstructured":"J.\u00a0Delobelle, Ranking-based Semantics for Abstract Argumentation, PhD thesis, Universit\u00e9 d\u2019Artois, France, 2017."},{"key":"ref037","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijar.2017.11.013"},{"key":"ref038","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Y.\u00a0Dimopoulos, J.G.\u00a0Mailly and P.\u00a0Moraitis, Control argumentation frameworks, in: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI\u201918), 2018.","DOI":"10.1609\/aaai.v32i1.11583"},{"key":"ref039","unstructured":"S.\u00a0Doutre, A.\u00a0Herzig and L.\u00a0Perrussel, A dynamic logic framework for abstract argumentation, in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR\u201914), 2014, pp.\u00a062\u201371."},{"key":"ref040","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"S.\u00a0Doutre, F.\u00a0Maffre and P.\u00a0McBurney, A dynamic logic framework for argumentation: Adding and removing arguments, in: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Industrial, Engineering, Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems (IEA\/AIE\u201917), 2017, pp.\u00a0295\u2013305.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-60045-1_32"},{"key":"ref041","unstructured":"S.\u00a0Doutre and J.G.\u00a0Mailly, Quantifying the difference between argumentation semantics, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA\u201916), 2016, pp.\u00a0255\u2013262."},{"key":"ref042","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"S.\u00a0Doutre and J.G.\u00a0Mailly, Semantic change and extension enforcement in abstract argumentation, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management (SUM\u201917), 2017, pp.\u00a0194\u2013207. doi:10.1007\/978-3-319-67582-4_14.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-67582-4_14"},{"key":"ref043","unstructured":"S.\u00a0Doutre and L.\u00a0Perrussel, On enforcing a constraint in argumentation, in: 11th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS\u201913), 2013."},{"key":"ref044","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0004-3702(94)00041-X"},{"key":"ref045","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.artint.2015.07.006"},{"key":"ref046","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijar.2016.04.003"},{"issue":"5","key":"ref047","first-page":"1489","volume":"27","author":"Dvo\u0159\u00e1k W.","year":"2017","journal-title":"Journal of Logic and Computation"},{"key":"ref048","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1613\/jair.3318"},{"key":"ref049","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"M.A.\u00a0Falappa, G.\u00a0Kern-Isberner and G.R.\u00a0Simari, Belief revision and argumentation theory, in: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, 2009, pp.\u00a0341\u2013360.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-0-387-98197-0_17"},{"key":"ref050","unstructured":"A.\u00a0Herzig, E.\u00a0Lorini, F.\u00a0Moisan and N.\u00a0Troquard, A dynamic logic of normative systems, in: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2011), 2011, pp.\u00a0228\u2013233."},{"key":"ref051","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0004-3702(91)90069-V"},{"key":"ref052","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"H.\u00a0Katsuno and A.O.\u00a0Mendelzon, On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it, in: Belief Revision, P.\u00a0G\u00e4rdenfors, ed. Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp.\u00a0183\u2013203.","DOI":"10.1017\/CBO9780511526664.007"},{"key":"ref053","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"D.\u00a0Kontarinis, E.\u00a0Bonzon, N.\u00a0Maudet, A.\u00a0Perotti, L.\u00a0van der Torre and S.\u00a0Villata, Rewriting rules for the computation of goal-oriented changes in an argumentation system, in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA XIV), Springer, 2013, pp.\u00a051\u201368.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-40624-9_4"},{"key":"ref054","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0004-3702(90)90101-5"},{"key":"ref055","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.artint.2011.03.006"},{"key":"ref056","unstructured":"T.\u00a0Linsbichler and S.\u00a0Woltran, Revision of abstract dialectical frameworks: Preliminary report, in: First International Workshop on Argumentation in Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Arg-LPNMR 2016, 2016."},{"key":"ref057","unstructured":"J.G.\u00a0Mailly, Dynamics of Argumentation Frameworks, PhD thesis, Universit\u00e9 d\u2019Artois, France, 2015."},{"key":"ref058","unstructured":"J.G.\u00a0Mailly, Using enthymemes to fill the gap between logical argumentation and revision of abstract argumentation frameworks, in: 16th International Workshop on Non-Momotonic Reasoning (NMR\u201916), 2016."},{"key":"ref059","unstructured":"M.O.\u00a0Moguillansky, N.D.\u00a0Rotstein, M.A.\u00a0Falappa, A.J.\u00a0Garc\u00eda and G.R.\u00a0Simari, Argument theory change through defeater activation, in: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2010), 2010, pp.\u00a0359\u2013366."},{"key":"ref060","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"F.\u00a0Nouioua and E.\u00a0W\u00fcrbel, Removed set-based revision of abstract argumentation frameworks, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI\u201914), 2014, pp.\u00a0784\u2013791.","DOI":"10.1109\/ICTAI.2014.121"},{"key":"ref061","unstructured":"O.\u00a0Papini, A complete revision function in propositional calculus, in: Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (ECAI 1992), 1992, pp.\u00a0339\u2013343."},{"key":"ref062","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"F.\u00a0Pu, J.\u00a0Luo, Y.\u00a0Zhang and G.\u00a0Luo, Argument ranking with categoriser function, in: Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management\u00a0\u2013 7th International Conference, KSEM 2014, Proceedings, Sibiu, Romania, October 16\u201318, 2014, 2014, pp.\u00a0290\u2013301.","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-12096-6_26"},{"key":"ref063","unstructured":"T.\u00a0Rienstra, Argumentation in Flux: Modelling Change in the Theory of Argumentation, PhD thesis, Universit\u00e9 du Luxembourg and Universit\u00e9 de Montpellier II, 2014."},{"key":"ref064","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s10472-015-9483-5"},{"issue":"7","key":"ref065","first-page":"2089","volume":"27","author":"Snaith M.","year":"2017","journal-title":"J. Log. Comput."},{"key":"ref066","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1613\/jair.5415"},{"key":"ref067","unstructured":"E.\u00a0W\u00fcrbel, R.\u00a0Jeansoulin and O.\u00a0Papini, Revision: An application in the framework of GIS, in: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2000), 2000, pp.\u00a0505\u2013515."}],"container-title":["Argument &amp; Computation"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.3233\/AAC-180425","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.3233\/AAC-180425","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.3233\/AAC-180425","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,28]],"date-time":"2026-04-28T11:53:53Z","timestamp":1777377233000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.3233\/AAC-180425"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2018,10,17]]},"references-count":67,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2018,11,12]]}},"alternative-id":["10.3233\/AAC-180425"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3233\/aac-180425","relation":{},"ISSN":["1946-2166","1946-2174"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1946-2166","type":"print"},{"value":"1946-2174","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2018,10,17]]}}}