Package org.tweetyproject.arg.dung.reasoner
package org.tweetyproject.arg.dung.reasoner

ClassDescriptionAncestor class for reasoners that are tailored towards computing the set {a  a is credulously/skeptically accepted wrt.Ancestor class for all claim based reasoner.Ancestor class for all AAF reasoners.Ancestor class for all extensionbased reasoners.Uses a provided SAT solver to solve reasoning problems in AAFs.Implements the EEE approach ("exhaustively enumerate extensions") to determine the set of acceptable arguments of an AF, cf.Reasoner using ranking semantics.Implements the Fudge approach to determine the set of acceptable arguments of an AF wrt.Implements the IAQ approach ("iterative acceptability queries") to determine the set of acceptable arguments of an AF, cf.incomlete argumentation framework classThis reasoner makes use of an external executable for solving reasoning problems in abstract argumentation.This enum contains all supported problems for probobased reasoner.The actual computational subproblem.This reasoner makes use of an external executable for solving reasoning problems in abstract argumentation.Reasoner for qualified sigmasemantics.Uses a SAT solver to determine complete extensions.Uses a SAT solver to determine stable extensions.Reasoner for CF2 extensions using sccrecursiveness.Reasoner for SCF2 extensions using sccrecursiveness.reasoner for SCOOCnaive semantics.Implements the SEE approach ("selective extension enumeration") to determine the set of acceptable arguments of an AF wrt.Implements the SEEM approach ("selective extension enumeration with MaxSAT") to determine the set of credulously acceptable arguments of an AF wrt.Reasoner for semiqualified sigmasemantics.This reasoner for Dung theories performs inference on the admissible extensions.calculates claim based inherited extensionscalculates claim based naive extensionscalculates claim based preferred reasonera simple claimbased semi stable reasonera claim based stable reaonsercalculates claim based staged extensionsThis reasoner for Dung theories performs inference on the complete extensions.This reasoner for Dung theories performs inference on the conflictfree extensions.simple reasoner for eager semanticsThis reasoner for Dung theories performs inference on the grounded extension.This reasoner for Dung theories performs inference on the ideal extension.Basic Implementation of a reasoner for initial sets A set of arguments S is considered initial iff it is nonempty and minimal among the nonempty admissible sets see: Yuming Xu and Claudette Cayrol.Reasoner for naive extensions.This reasoner for Dung theories performs inference on the preferred extensions.This reasoner for Dung theories performs inference on the resolutionbased family of semantics.This reasoner for Dung theories performs inference on the complete extensions.Universal sccrecursive reasoner initialize with any reasoner for a sccrecursive semanticsThis reasoner calculates claim based semi stable extensionsThis reasoner for Dung theories performs inference on the stable extensions.This reasoner for Dung theories performs inference on the stage extensions.Reasoner for solid admissibility a set of arguments E soliddefends an argument a, iff for all attackers b of a it holds that all arguments c which attack b are in E see: Liu, X., and Chen, W.Reasoner for Stage2 semantics using sccrecursiveness definition see: Dvorak, Gaggl: Incorporating Stage Semantics in the SCCrecursive Schema for Argumentation Semantics 2012This class implements a stratified labeling reasoner.Reasoner for strong admissibility A set of arguments E is strongly admissible iff all every argument A in E is defended by some argument B in E \ {A} i.e.Implements the strongly undisputed semantics, as proposed in [Thimm.Implements the undisputed semantics, as proposed in [Thimm.Implements a general vacuous reduct reasoner, as proposed in [Thimm.Reasoner for weak admissibility the reasoner reduces the number of sets we have to check by computing candidate sets instead of checking all sets.Reasoner for weakly complete semantics as described in: see: Baumann, Brewka, Ulbricht: Revisiting the foundations of abstract argumentationsemantics based on weak admissibility and weak defense.Reasoner for weakly grounded semantics a set of arguments E is wgrounded iff it is wcomplete and minimal Note: unlike the grounded extension which is unique, there can be more than one wgrounded extension see: Baumann, Brewka, Ulbricht: Revisiting the foundations of abstract argumentationsemantics based on weak admissibility and weak defense.Reasoner for weakly preferred semantics see: Baumann, Brewka, Ulbricht: Revisiting the foundations of abstract argumentationsemantics based on weak admissibility and weak defense.