• Funding : Artois
  • PhD defended on :
  • 2015-09-30
  • Salle des thèses

This thesis aims at studying new scenarios of the dynamics of argumentation frameworks. Our contribution is manyfold. First, we have been interested in the use of the well known AGM framework for belief change, originally defined for logical settings. We have adapted the rationality postulates for belief revision in the argumentation setting, and we have defined some families of revision operators which satisfy these postulates. In this first contribution, we have in particular been interesting in the combination of several types of minimal change criteria. Then, we have proposed a revision approach based on logical encodings, which permit to use any propositional revision operator as an underlying tool to perform the revision. Again, this approach allows to combine different kind of minimalities, and we have proven that some restrictions on the operators ensure that they satisfy a family of AGM-like postulates. At last, we have used logical translations of argumentation frameworks with another purpose: extension enforcement. Said otherwise, we have defined some new approaches which modify an argumentation framework to ensure that a given set of arguments becomes an extension, and we have translated the enforcement problem into Boolean satisfaction and optimization problems, which permits to take advantage of some very efficient constraint programming techniques to compute the result of enforcement.