Abstract
In this paper, we discuss and relate characterisations of different forms of ‘jumping to conclusions’: Kraus, Lehmann & Magidor's analysis of plausible reasoning, the present author's characterisation of inductive reasoning, Zadrozny's account of abductive reasoning, and Gärdenfors' theory of belief revision. Our main claims are that (i) inductive reasoning can be characterised in a way similar to plausible reasoning; (ii) inductive and abductive reasoning are special cases of explanatory reasoning; and (iii) there are strong relations between belief revision and explanatory reasoning. The ultimate goal of this research is a general account of jumping to conclusions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
P.A. Flach (1989), ‘Second-order inductive learning'. In Analogical and Inductive Inference AII'89, K.P. Jantke (ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 397, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 202–216. Full version appeared as ITK Research Report no. 10.
P.A. FLACH (1990), ‘Inductive characterisation of database relations'. In Proc. International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Z.W. Ras, M. Zemankowa & M.L. Emrich (eds.), pp. 371–378, North-Holland, Amsterdam. Full version appeared as ITK Research Report no. 23.
P.A. FLACH (1991), The role of explanations in inductive learning, ITK Research Report no. 30, Institute for Language Technology & Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg University, the Netherlands.
P.A. FLACH (1992), On the validity of inductive reasoning, manuscript.
D.M. GABBAY (1985), ‘Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems'. In Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, K.R. Apt (ed.), pp. 439–457, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
P. GÄRDENFORS (1988), Knowledge influx, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
P. GÄRDENFORS (1990), ‘Belief revision and nonmonotonic logic: two sides of the same coin?' In Proc. Ninth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 768–773, Pitman, London.
E.M. GOLD (1967), ‘Language identification in the limit', Information and Control 10, pp. 447–474.
A.C. KAKAS, R.A. KOWALSKI & F. TONI (1992), Abductive Logic Programming. Imperial College, London, January 1992.
S. KRAUS, D. LEHMANN & M. MAGIDOR (1990), ‘Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics', Artificial Intelligence 44, pp. 167–207.
T.M. MITCHELL (1982), ‘Generalization as search', Artificial Intelligence 18:2, pp. 203–226.
B. NEBEL (1989), ‘A knowledge level analysis of belief revision'. In Proc. First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.
D. POOLE (1989), ‘Normality and faults in logic-based diagnosis'. In Proc. Logics in Computer Science, pp. 275–279, Ithaca, NY.
Y. SHOHAM (1987), ‘A semantical approach to nonmonotonic logics'. In Proc. Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1304–1310, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.
W. ZADROZNY (1991), On rules of abduction. IBM Research Report, August 1991.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1992 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Flach, P.A. (1992). An analysis of various forms of ‘jumping to conclusions’. In: Jantke, K.P. (eds) Analogical and Inductive Inference. AII 1992. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 642. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56004-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-56004-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-56004-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47339-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive