Added missing javadoc EafPreferenceRepresentationExample.java

Author: “jklein94”

org-tweetyproject-arg-eaf/src/main/java/org/tweetyproject/arg/eaf/examples/EafPreferenceRepresentationExample.java

@@ -24,49 +24,72 @@
 import org.tweetyproject.arg.eaf.syntax.EpistemicArgumentationFramework;
 
 /**
- * 
+ * Demonstrates how epistemic preferences can be encoded within
+ * an {@link EpistemicArgumentationFramework} using logical implication
+ * and justification state preferences.
+ *
+ * <p>This example illustrates:
+ * <ul>
+ *   <li>How preferences over arguments can be modeled using constraints like {@code [](in(a) => in(r))}</li>
+ *   <li>How justification state preferences can be expressed, e.g., requiring {@code und(a)} to be accepted if {@code in(a)} is accepted</li>
+ *   <li>How epistemic constraints influence the resulting labellings under different semantics</li>
+ * </ul>
+ *
+ * <p>The scenario is based on a simple Dung theory with two mutually attacking arguments.
  */
 public class EafPreferenceRepresentationExample {
 
-	/**
-	 * @param args
-	 */
+    /**
+     * Entry point for the example demonstrating the encoding of preferences
+     * in an epistemic argumentation framework using logical implication over
+     * acceptance and justification states.
+     *
+     * <p>Three different EAFs are created with varying constraints to express:
+     * <ul>
+     *   <li>Simple preference over arguments (e.g., "if a is accepted, then r should be accepted")</li>
+     *   <li>Conditional preference (e.g., "if a is accepted or undecided, then r should be accepted")</li>
+     *   <li>Preference over justification states (e.g., "in(a) implies und(a)")</li>
+     * </ul>
+     * The resulting epistemic labelling sets under different semantics (complete, stable) are printed to the console.
+     *
+     * @param args command-line arguments (not used).
+     */
 	public static void main(String[] args) {
 		Argument a = new Argument("a");
 		Argument b = new Argument("b");
 		Argument c = new Argument("c");
 		Argument d = new Argument("d");
 		Argument r = new Argument("r");
-		
+
 		DungTheory af = new DungTheory();
-		
+
 		af.add(a);
 		af.add(r);
-		
+
 		af.addAttack(a,r);
 		af.addAttack(r,a);
 
 
 		String constEAF1 = "[](in(a)=>in(r))";
-		EpistemicArgumentationFramework eaf1 = new EpistemicArgumentationFramework(af, constEAF1);	
-		
+		EpistemicArgumentationFramework eaf1 = new EpistemicArgumentationFramework(af, constEAF1);
+
 		System.out.println("Preference over arguments can be represented using the implication operator, where [](in(a)=>in(r)) means that the preferred argument r should be accepted, whenever a is accepted.");
 		System.out.print("The EAF: \n"+ eaf1.prettyPrint() +"\n\nhas the following stable labelling set:");
 		System.out.println(eaf1.getWEpistemicLabellingSets(Semantics.ST));
 		System.out.print("This EAF has the following complete labelling set:");
 		System.out.println(eaf1.getWEpistemicLabellingSets(Semantics.CO));
 		System.out.println();
-				
+
 		String constEAF2 = "[](in(a)||und(a)=>in(r))";
 		EpistemicArgumentationFramework eaf2 = new EpistemicArgumentationFramework(af, constEAF2);
 		System.out.print("The EAF: \n"+ eaf2.prettyPrint() +"\n\nhas the following complete labelling set:");
 		System.out.println(eaf2.getWEpistemicLabellingSets(Semantics.CO));
-		
+
 		System.out.println("\nPreference over justification states can be represented using the implication operator.");
 		System.out.println("For example, [](in(a) => und(a)) means that the less preferred justification state in(a) is only acceptable if the preferred state und(a) is also accepted.");
 		String constEAF3 = "[](in(a)=>und(a)) && [](out(a)=>und(a)) && [](in(r)=>und(r)) && [](out(r)=>und(r))";
 		EpistemicArgumentationFramework eaf3 = new EpistemicArgumentationFramework(af, constEAF3);
-		
+
 		System.out.print("The EAF: \n"+ eaf3.prettyPrint() +"\n\nhas the following complete labelling set:");
 		System.out.println(eaf3.getWEpistemicLabellingSets(Semantics.CO));