Uses of Interface
org.tweetyproject.commons.postulates.Postulate
Packages that use Postulate
Package
Description
-
Uses of Postulate in org.tweetyproject.arg.dung.principles
Classes in org.tweetyproject.arg.dung.principles that implement PostulateModifier and TypeClassDescriptionclassAdmissibility PrincipleclassAllowing abstention principleclassCF-Reinstatement PrincipleclassConflict-free PrincipleclassDefence principleclassDirectionality PrincipleclassI-Maximality PrincipleclassIrrelevance of Necessarily Rejected Arguments (INRA) PrincipleclassModularization PrincipleclassNaivety PrincipleclassNon-Interference PrincipleclassModels a principle for argumentation semantics i.e.classReduct-Admissibility PrincipleclassReinstatement PrincipleclassSCC Decomposability Principle (also SCC-Recursiveness)classStrong Complete Completeness Outside Odd Cycles Principle (SCOOC)classSemi Directionality PrincipleclassSemi-Qualified Admissibility PrincipleclassPrinciple of Strong AdmissibilityclassWeak Directionality PrincipleclassWeak Reinstatement Principle -
Uses of Postulate in org.tweetyproject.arg.rankings.postulates
Classes in org.tweetyproject.arg.rankings.postulates that implement PostulateModifier and TypeClassDescriptionclassThe "abstraction" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.classThe "addition of attack branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.classThe "addition of defense branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.classThe "attack vs full defense" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.classThe "cardinality precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.classThe "counter-transitivity" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.classThe "defense precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.classThe "distributed-defense precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.classThe "increase of attack branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.classThe "increase of defense branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.classThe "independence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.classAn abstract postulate for ranking-based semantics in abstract argumentation; the ancestor of all concrete postulates.classThe "non-attacked equivalence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.classThe "quality precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.classThe "self-contradiction" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Matt, Toni.classRepresents the Sigma-Compatibility postulate for ranking-based argumentation frameworks.classRepresents the Skeptical Sigma-Compatibility postulate for ranking-based argumentation frameworks.classThe "strict addition of defense branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.classThe "strict counter-transitivity" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed by [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.classThe "total" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.classThe "void precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed by [Amgoud, Ben-Naim. -
Uses of Postulate in org.tweetyproject.commons.postulates
Methods in org.tweetyproject.commons.postulates with parameters of type PostulateModifier and TypeMethodDescriptionvoidPostulateEvaluationReport.addNegativeInstance(Postulate<S> postulate, Collection<S> instance) Adds a negative instance for the given postulatevoidPostulateEvaluationReport.addNotApplicableInstance(Postulate<S> postulate, Collection<S> instance) Adds an instance that is not applicable for the given postulatevoidPostulateEvaluationReport.addPositiveInstance(Postulate<S> postulate, Collection<S> instance) Adds a positive instance for the given postulate (that is applicable)voidPostulateEvaluator.addPostulate(Postulate<T> p) Adds the given postulatePostulateEvaluationReport.getNegativeInstances(Postulate<S> postulate) Returns the negative instances for the given postulatebooleanPostulateEvaluator.removePostulate(Postulate<T> p) Removes the given postulateMethod parameters in org.tweetyproject.commons.postulates with type arguments of type PostulateModifier and TypeMethodDescriptionvoidPostulateEvaluator.addAllPostulates(Collection<? extends Postulate<T>> postulates) Adds all postulates in the given collection.voidPostulateEvaluator.removeAllPostulates(Collection<? extends Postulate<T>> postulates) Removes all postulates in the given collection.Constructor parameters in org.tweetyproject.commons.postulates with type arguments of type PostulateModifierConstructorDescriptionPostulateEvaluationReport(PostulateEvaluatable<S> ev, List<Postulate<S>> postulates) Creates a new evaluation report for the given approach and set of postulatesPostulateEvaluator(BeliefSetIterator<T, U> iterator, PostulateEvaluatable<T> ev, Collection<Postulate<T>> postulates) Creates a new evaluator for the given evaluatable and belief base generator. -
Uses of Postulate in org.tweetyproject.logics.pl.postulates
Classes in org.tweetyproject.logics.pl.postulates that implement PostulateModifier and TypeClassDescriptionclassThe "adjunction invariance" postulate for inconsistency measures: The set notation of knowledge bases should be equivalent to the conjunction of its formulas in terms of inconsistency values.classThe "attenuation" postulate for inconsistency measures: Minimal inconsistent sets of smaller size should have a larger inconsistency value.classThe "consistency" postulate for inconsistency measures: Consistent knowledge bases receive the minimal inconsistency value (0) and all inconsistent knowledge bases have strictly positive inconsistency values.classThe "contradiction" postulate for inconsistency measures: A knowledge base is maximally inconsistent if all non-empty subsets are inconsistent.classThe "dominance" postulate for inconsistency measures: Substituting a consistent formula by a weaker formula should not increase the inconsistency value.classThe "equal conflict" postulate for inconsistency measures: Minimal inconsistent subsets of the same size should have the same inconsistency value.classThe "exchange" postulate for inconsistency measures: Exchanging consistent parts of a knowledge base with equivalent ones should not change the inconsistency value.classThe "free-formula dilution" postulate for inconsistency measures: Removing a formula not participating in any minimal inconsistent set does not make the inconsistency value larger.classThe "free-formula independence" postulate for inconsistency measures: Removing a formula not participating in any minimal inconsistent set (= a free formula) does not change the inconsistency value.classThe "irrelevance of syntax" postulate for inconsistency measures: Knowledge bases with pairwise equivalent formulas should receive the same inconsistency value.classThe "MI-normalization" postulate for inconsistency measures: The inconsistency value of any minimal inconsistent subset is 1.classThe "MI-separability" postulate for inconsistency measures: The sum of inconsistency values of two knowledge bases with non-interfering sets of minimal inconsistent subsets should be the same as the inconsistency value of their union.classThe "monotony" postulate for inconsistency measures: Adding information to a belief base cannot decrease the inconsistency value.classThe "normalization" postulate for inconsistency measures: The inconsistency value is always in the unit interval [0,1], making it possible to compare inconsistency values for knowledge bases of different sizes.classThe "penalty" postulate for inconsistency measures: Adding a formula that participates in an inconsistency (i.e.classAn abstract postulate for inconsistency measures in propositional logic; the ancestor of all concrete postulates.classThe "safe-formula independence" postulate for inconsistency measures: Removing a safe formula (i.e.classThe "super-additivity" postulate for inconsistency measures: The sum of the inconsistency values of two disjoint knowledge bases is not larger than the inconsistency value of the joint knowledge base.classA weaker variant of the "dominance" postulate using prime implicates, proposed in [Jabbour et al.