Uses of Interface
org.tweetyproject.commons.postulates.Postulate
Package
Description
-
Uses of Postulate in org.tweetyproject.arg.dung.principles
Modifier and TypeClassDescriptionclass
Admissibility Principleclass
Allowing abstention principleclass
CF-Reinstatement Principleclass
Conflict-free Principleclass
Defence principleclass
Directionality Principleclass
I-Maximality Principleclass
Irrelevance of Necessarily Rejected Arguments (INRA) Principleclass
Modularization Principleclass
Naivety Principleclass
Non-Interference Principleclass
Models a principle for argumentation semantics i.e.class
Reduct-Admissibility Principleclass
Reinstatement Principleclass
SCC Decomposability Principle (also SCC-Recursiveness)class
Strong Complete Completeness Outside Odd Cycles Principle (SCOOC)class
Semi Directionality Principleclass
Semi-Qualified Admissibility Principleclass
Principle of Strong Admissibilityclass
Weak Directionality Principleclass
Weak Reinstatement Principle -
Uses of Postulate in org.tweetyproject.arg.rankings.postulates
Modifier and TypeClassDescriptionclass
The "abstraction" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.class
The "addition of attack branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.class
The "addition of defense branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.class
The "attack vs full defense" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.class
The "cardinality precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.class
The "counter-transitivity" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.class
The "defense precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.class
The "distributed-defense precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.class
The "increase of attack branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.class
The "increase of defense branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.class
The "independence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.class
An abstract postulate for ranking-based semantics in abstract argumentation; the ancestor of all concrete postulates.class
The "non-attacked equivalence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.class
The "quality precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.class
The "self-contradiction" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Matt, Toni.class
The "strict addition of defense branch" postulate for ranking semantics as formalized in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.class
The "strict counter-transitivity" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed by [Amgoud, Ben-Naim.class
The "total" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed in [Bonzon, Delobelle, Konieczny, Maudet.class
The "void precedence" postulate for ranking semantics as proposed by [Amgoud, Ben-Naim. -
Uses of Postulate in org.tweetyproject.commons.postulates
Modifier and TypeMethodDescriptionvoid
PostulateEvaluationReport.addNegativeInstance
(Postulate<S> postulate, Collection<S> instance) Adds a negative instance for the given postulatevoid
PostulateEvaluationReport.addNotApplicableInstance
(Postulate<S> postulate, Collection<S> instance) Adds an instance that is not applicable for the given postulatevoid
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 postulatePostulateEvaluationReport.getNegativeInstances
(Postulate<S> postulate) Returns the negative instances for the given postulateboolean
PostulateEvaluator.removePostulate
(Postulate<T> p) Removes the given postulateModifier and TypeMethodDescriptionvoid
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.ModifierConstructorDescriptionPostulateEvaluationReport
(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
Modifier and TypeClassDescriptionclass
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
The "attenuation" postulate for inconsistency measures: Minimal inconsistent sets of smaller size should have a larger inconsistency value.class
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
The "contradiction" postulate for inconsistency measures: A knowledge base is maximally inconsistent if all non-empty subsets are inconsistent.class
The "dominance" postulate for inconsistency measures: Substituting a consistent formula by a weaker formula should not increase the inconsistency value.class
The "equal conflict" postulate for inconsistency measures: Minimal inconsistent subsets of the same size should have the same inconsistency value.class
The "exchange" postulate for inconsistency measures: Exchanging consistent parts of a knowledge base with equivalent ones should not change the inconsistency value.class
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
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
The "irrelevance of syntax" postulate for inconsistency measures: Knowledge bases with pairwise equivalent formulas should receive the same inconsistency value.class
The "MI-normalization" postulate for inconsistency measures: The inconsistency value of any minimal inconsistent subset is 1.class
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
The "monotony" postulate for inconsistency measures: Adding information to a belief base cannot decrease the inconsistency value.class
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
The "penalty" postulate for inconsistency measures: Adding a formula that participates in an inconsistency (i.e.class
An abstract postulate for inconsistency measures in propositional logic; the ancestor of all concrete postulates.class
The "safe-formula independence" postulate for inconsistency measures: Removing a safe formula (i.e.class
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
A weaker variant of the "dominance" postulate using prime implicates, proposed in [Jabbour et al.