Package org.tweetyproject.arg.dung.principles
package org.tweetyproject.arg.dung.principles
-
ClassesClassDescriptionAdmissibility Principle A semantics satisfies admissibility if for all extensions E it holds that: every argument in E is defended by E see Baroni, P., and Giacomin, M.CF-Reinstatement Principle A semantics satisfies cf-reinstatement if for all extensions E it holds that: for all arguments a, if E u {a} is conflict-free and E defends a, then a is in E see: Baroni, P., and Giacomin, M.Conflict-free Principle A semantics satisfies conflict-freeness if for all extensions E it holds that: E is conflict-free trivial property satisfied by practically all semantics see: Baroni, P., and Giacomin, M.Directionality Principle A semantics satisfies directionality if for every unattacked set U in a dung theory F it holds that: The extensions of F restricted to U are equal to the extensions of F intersected with U see: Baroni, P., and Giacomin, M.I-Maximality Principle A semantics satisfies I-Maximality iff for all pairs of extensions E1, E2 it holds that: if E1 is a subset of E2, then E1 = E2 see: Baroni, P., and Giacomin, M.Irrelevance of Necessarily Rejected Arguments (INRA) Principle A semantics s satisfies INRA if for every AF F it holds that: for every argument a in F, if every s-extension attacks a, then s(F) = s(F\{a}) i.e if an argument is attacked by every extension, then it does not influence the computation of extensions and can be ignored see: Cramer, M., and van der Torre, L.Modularization Principle A semantics s satisfies modularization iff for every AF F we have: if E1 is a s-extension of F and E2 is a s-extension of the E1-reduct of F, then (E1 u E2) is a s-extension of F see: Baumann et.Naivety Principle A semantics satisfies naivety if for all extensions E it holds that: E is conflict-free and maximal w.r.t set inclusion see: TODOModels a principle for argumentation semantics i.e.Reduct-Admissibility Principle A semantics satisfies reduct admissibility iff for every AF F and every extension E we have: For all arguments a in E: if an argument b attacks a, then b is in no extension of the E-reduct of F see: Dauphin, Jeremie, Tjitze Rienstra, and Leendert Van Der Torre.Reinstatement Principle A semantics satisfies reinstatement if for all extensions E it holds that: for all arguments a, if E defends a, then a is in E i.e E is a complete extension see: Baroni, P., and Giacomin, M.SCC Decomposability Principle also: SCC-Recursiveness A semantics satisfies SCC decomposability iff for all AFs we have: The extensions of F are the same as computing the extensions of each SCC individually and combining the result see: Pietro Baroni et al.Strong Complete Completeness Outside Odd Cycles Principle (SCOOC) A semantics satisfied SCOOC if for every extension E it holds that: for every argument a, if neither a nor its attackers are in an odd cycle and E does not attack a, then a is in E.Semi-Qualified Admissibility Principle A semantics s satisfies semi-qualified admissibility iff for every AF F and every s-extension E we have: For all arguments a in E: if an argument b attacks a and b is in any s-extension, then E attacks b see: Dauphin, Jeremie, Tjitze Rienstra, and Leendert Van Der Torre.Principle of Strong Admissibility A semantics satisfies strong admissibility iff for every extensions E in every AF it holds that: all arguments in E are strongly defended by E, i.e.Weak Reinstatement Principle A semantics satisfies weak reinstatement if for all extensions E it holds that: if E strongly defends an argument a, then a is in E An argument a is strongly defended by E iff some argument in E \ {a} defends a see: Baroni, P., and Giacomin, M.