Uses of Interface
org.tweetyproject.commons.postulates.Postulate

Packages that use Postulate

Package	Description
org.tweetyproject.arg.dung.principles
org.tweetyproject.arg.rankings.postulates
org.tweetyproject.commons.postulates
org.tweetyproject.logics.pl.postulates

Uses of Postulate in org.tweetyproject.arg.dung.principles

Classes in org.tweetyproject.arg.dung.principles that implement Postulate

Modifier and Type	Class	Description
class	AdmissibilityPrinciple	Admissibility 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.
class	CFReinstatementPrinciple	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.
class	ConflictFreePrinciple	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.
class	DirectionalityPrinciple	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.
class	IMaximalityPrinciple	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.
class	INRAPrinciple	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.
class	ModularizationPrinciple	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.
class	NaivetyPrinciple	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: TODO
class	Principle	Models a principle for argumentation semantics i.e.
class	ReductAdmissibilityPrinciple	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.
class	ReinstatementPrinciple	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.
class	SccDecomposabilityPrinciple	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.
class	SCOOCPrinciple	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.
class	SemiQualifiedAdmissibilityPrinciple	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.
class	StrongAdmissibilityPrinciple	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.
class	WeakReinstatementPrinciple	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.

Uses of Postulate in org.tweetyproject.arg.rankings.postulates

Classes in org.tweetyproject.arg.rankings.postulates that implement Postulate

Modifier and Type	Class	Description
class	RaAbstraction	The "abstraction" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.
class	RaAdditionOfAttackBranch	The "addition of attack branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.
class	RaAdditionOfDefenseBranch	The "addition of defense branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.
class	RaAttackVsFullDefense	The "attack vs full defense" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.
class	RaCardinalityPrecedence	The "cardinality precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.
class	RaCounterTransitivity	The "counter-transitivity" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.
class	RaDefensePrecedence	The "defense precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.
class	RaDistDefensePrecedence	The "distributed-defense precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.
class	RaIncreaseOfAttackBranch	The "increase of attack branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.
class	RaIncreaseOfDefenseBranch	The "increase of defense branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.
class	RaIndependence	The "independence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.
class	RankingPostulate	An abstract postulate for ranking-based semantics in abstract argumentation; the ancestor of all concrete postulates.
class	RaNonAttackedEquivalence	The "non-attacked equivalence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.
class	RaQualityPrecedence	The "quality precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.
class	RaSelfContradiction	The "self-contradiction" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Matt, Toni.
class	RaStrictAdditionOfDefenseBranch	The "strict addition of defense branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.
class	RaStrictCounterTransitivity	The "strict counter-transitivity" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed by [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.
class	RaTotal	The "total" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.
class	RaVoidPrecedence	The "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 Postulate

Modifier and Type	Method	Description
void	PostulateEvaluationReport.addNegativeInstance(Postulate<S> postulate, Collection<S> instance)	Adds a negative instance for the given postulate
void	PostulateEvaluationReport.addNotApplicableInstance(Postulate<S> postulate, Collection<S> instance)	Adds an instance that is not applicable for the given postulate
void	PostulateEvaluationReport.addPositiveInstance(Postulate<S> postulate, Collection<S> instance)	Adds a positive instance for the given postulate (that is applicable)
void	PostulateEvaluator.addPostulate(Postulate<T> p)	Adds the given postulate
Collection<Collection<S>>	PostulateEvaluationReport.getNegativeInstances(Postulate<S> postulate)	Returns the negative instances for the given postulate
boolean	PostulateEvaluator.removePostulate(Postulate<T> p)	Removes the given postulate

Method parameters in org.tweetyproject.commons.postulates with type arguments of type Postulate

Modifier and Type	Method	Description
void	PostulateEvaluator.addAllPostulates(Collection<? extends Postulate<T>> postulates)	Adds all postulates in the given collection.
void	PostulateEvaluator.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 Postulate

Modifier	Constructor	Description
	PostulateEvaluationReport(PostulateEvaluatable<S> ev, List<Postulate<S>> postulates)	Creates a new evaluation report for the given approach and set of postulates
	PostulateEvaluator(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 Postulate

Modifier and Type	Class	Description
class	ImAdjunctionInvariance	The "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.
class	ImAttenuation	The "attenuation" postulate for inconsistency measures: Minimal inconsistent sets of smaller size should have a larger inconsistency value.
class	ImConsistency	The "consistency" postulate for inconsistency measures: Consistent knowledge bases receive the minimal inconsistency value (0) and all inconsistent knowledge bases have strictly positive inconsistency values.
class	ImContradiction	The "contradiction" postulate for inconsistency measures: A knowledge base is maximally inconsistent if all non-empty subsets are inconsistent.
class	ImDominance	The "dominance" postulate for inconsistency measures: Substituting a consistent formula by a weaker formula should not increase the inconsistency value.
class	ImEqualConflict	The "equal conflict" postulate for inconsistency measures: Minimal inconsistent subsets of the same size should have the same inconsistency value.
class	ImExchange	The "exchange" postulate for inconsistency measures: Exchanging consistent parts of a knowledge base with equivalent ones should not change the inconsistency value.
class	ImFreeFormulaDilution	The "free-formula dilution" postulate for inconsistency measures: Removing a formula not participating in any minimal inconsistent set does not make the inconsistency value larger.
class	ImFreeFormulaIndependence	The "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.
class	ImIrrelevanceOfSyntax	The "irrelevance of syntax" postulate for inconsistency measures: Knowledge bases with pairwise equivalent formulas should receive the same inconsistency value.
class	ImMINormalization	The "MI-normalization" postulate for inconsistency measures: The inconsistency value of any minimal inconsistent subset is 1.
class	ImMISeparability	The "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.
class	ImMonotony	The "monotony" postulate for inconsistency measures: Adding information to a belief base cannot decrease the inconsistency value.
class	ImNormalization	The "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.
class	ImPenalty	The "penalty" postulate for inconsistency measures: Adding a formula that participates in an inconsistency (i.e.
class	ImPostulate	An abstract postulate for inconsistency measures in propositional logic; the ancestor of all concrete postulates.
class	ImSafeFormulaIndependence	The "safe-formula independence" postulate for inconsistency measures: Removing a safe formula (i.e.
class	ImSuperAdditivity	The "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.
class	ImWeakDominance	A weaker variant of the "dominance" postulate using prime implicates, proposed in [Jabbour et al.