Induction as consequence finding

Machine Learning

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 2004, Pages

  Inoue, Katsumi ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATICS   (Japan)

Author keywords

Abduction; Consequence finding; Induction; Inverse entailment

Indexed keywords

ABDUCTION; CONSEQUENCE FINDING; INDUCTION; INVERSE ENTAILMENT;

COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INVERSE PROBLEMS; LOGIC PROGRAMMING;

HEURISTIC METHODS;

EID: 3543077604     PISSN: 08856125     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:MACH.0000023149.72125.e2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Bibel, W. (1998). Deduction: Automated logic. Academic Press.
2. Buntine, W. (1988). Generalized subsumption and its applications to induction and redundancy. Artificial Intelligence, 36, 149-176.
3. Cox, P. T., & Pietrzykowski, T. (1986). Causes for events: their computation and applications. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Automated Deduction (pp. 608-621). LNCS 230, Springer.
4. De Raedt, L. (1997). Logical settings for concept-learning. Artificial Intelligence, 95, 187-201.
5. del Val, A. (1999). A new method for consequence finding and compilation in restricted languages. In Proceedings of AAAI-99 (pp. 259-264). AAAI Press.
6. Diraopoulos, Y., & Kakas, A. (1996). Abduction and inductive learning. In L. De Raedt (Ed.), Advances in inductive logic programming. IOS Press.
7. Flach, P. A., & Kakas, A. C. (Eds.). (2000). Abduction and induction: Essays on their relation and integration. Kluwer.
8. Furukawa, K., Murakami, T., Ueno, K., Ozaki, T., & K. Shimazu. (1997). On a sufficient condition for the existence of most specific hypothesis in Progol. In N. Lavrač, & S. Džeroski (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (pp. 157-164). LNAI 1297, Springer.
9. Furukawa, K. (1998). On the completion of the most specific hypothesis computation in inverse entailment for mutual recursion. In Proceedings of Discovery Science '98 (pp. 315-325). LNAI 1532, Springer.
10. Grégoire, É., & Saïs, L. (1996). Inductive reasoning is sometimes deductive. In Proceedings of ECAI-96 Workshop on Abductive and Inductive Reasoning.
11. Helft, N. (1989). Induction as nonmonotonic inference. In R.J. Brachman, H.J. Levesque, & R. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (pp. 149-156). Morgan Kaufmann.
12. Helft, N., Inoue, K., & Poole, D. (1991). Query answering in circumscription. In Proceedings of IJCAI-91 (pp. 426-431). Morgan Kaufmann.
13. Inoue, K. (1992). Linear resolution for consequence finding. Artificial Intelligence, 56, 301-353.
14. Inoue, K. (2001). Induction, abduction, and consequence-finding. In C. Rouveirol, & M. Sebag (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (pp. 65-79). LNAI 2157, Springer.
15. Inoue, K. (2002). Automated abduction. In A. Kakas, & F. Sadri (Eds.), Computational Logic: From Logic Programming into the Future - In Honour of Bob Kowalski (Part II). LNAI 2408, Springer.
16. Inoue, K., & C. Sakama. (2002). Disjunctive explanations. In P. Stuckey (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Logic Programming (pp. 317-332), LNCS 2401, Springer.
17. Iwanuma, K., Inoue, K., & Satoh, K. (2000). Completeness of pruning methods for consequence finding procedure SOL. In P. Baumgartner, & H. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on First-Order Theorem Proving (pp. 89-100).
18. Konolige, K. (1992). Abduction versus closure in causal theories. Artificial Intelligence, 53, 255-272.
19. Lachiche, N. (2000). Abduction and induction from a non-monotonic reasoning perspective. In P.A. Flach, & A.C. Kakas (Eds.), Abduction and induction: Essays on their relation and integration. Kluwer.
20. Lee, C. T. (1967). A completeness theorem and computer program for finding theorems derivable from given axioms. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
21. Marquis, P. (2000). Consequence finding algorithms. In D. M. Gabbay & P. Smets (Eds.), Handbook for defeasible reasoning and uncertain management systems (vol. 5). Kluwer Academic.
22. Muggleton, S. (1995). Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, 13, 245-286.
23. Muggleton, S. (1998). Completing inverse entailment. In D. Page (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (pp. 245-249). LNAI 1446, Springer.
24. Muggleton, S. (2001). Learning from positive data. Machine Learning, to appear.
25. Muggleton, S., & Bryant, C. (2000). Theory completion and inverse entailment. In J. Cussens, & A. Frisch (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (pp. 130-146). LNAI 1866, Springer.
26. Muggleton, S., & Buntine, W. (1988). Machine invention of first-order predicates by inverting resolution. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 339-352). Morgan Kaufmann.
27. Nienhuys-Cheng, S. H., & de Wolf, R. (1997). Foundations of inductive logic programming, LNAI 1228, Springer.
28. Otsuji, K. (2002). Research on implementation of CF-induction using SOL resolution. Graduation Thesis, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Kobe University.
29. Peirce, C. S. (1932). Elements of logic. In C. Hartshorne, & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (vol; II). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30. Pettorossi, A., & Proietti, M. (I994). Transformation of logic programs: foundations and techniques. Journal of Logic Programming, 19 & 20, 261-320.
31. Plotkin, G. D. (1971). A further note on inductive generalization. In B. Meltzer, & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence (vol. 6). Edinburgh University Press.
32. Stickel, M. E. (1988). A Prolog technology theorem prover: implementation by an extended Prolog compiler. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 4, 353-380.
33. Yamamoto, A. (1997). Which hypotheses can be found with inverse entailment? In N. Lavrač, & S. Džeroski (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (pp. 296-308). LNAI 1297, Springer.
34. Yamamoto, A. (2000). Using abduction for induction based on bottom generalization. In Flach, & Kakas, 2000, Abduction and induction: Essays on their relation and integration. Kluwer.
35. Yamamoto, A. (2002). Hypothesis finding based on upward refinement of residue hypotheses. Theoretical Computer Science, to appear.
36. Yamamoto, A., & Fronhöfer, B. (2000). Hypotheses finding via residue hypotheses with the resolution principle. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (pp. 156-165). LNAI 1968, Springer.