Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming

ILP 2008: Inductive Logic Programming pp 261–278Cite as

Brave Induction

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5194))

Abstract

This paper considers the following induction problem. Given the background knowledge B and an observation O, find a hypothesis H such that a consistent theory B ∧ H has a minimal model satisfying O. We call this type of induction brave induction. Brave induction is different from explanatory induction in ILP, which requires that O is satisfied in every model of B ∧ H. Brave induction is useful for learning disjunctive rules from observations, or learning from the background knowledge containing indefinite or incomplete information. We develop an algorithm for computing brave induction, and extend it to induction in answer set programming.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. De Raedt, L., Lavrač, N.: The many faces of inductive logic programming. In: Komorowski, J., Raś, Z.W. (eds.) ISMIS 1993. LNCS, vol. 689, pp. 435–449. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  2. De Raedt, L., Lavrač, N.: Multiple predicate learning in two inductive logic programming setting. Journal of the IGPL 4(2), 227–254 (1996)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. De Raedt, L.: Logical settings for concept-learning. Artificial Intelligence 95, 187–201 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. De Raedt, L., Dehaspe, L.: Learning from satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 9th Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 303–312 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Doncescu, A., Yamamoto, Y., Inoue, K.: Biological systems analysis using inductive logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, pp. 690–695. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: propositional case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15, 289–323 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Leone, N.: Abduction from logic programs: semantics and complexity. Theoretical Computer Science 189, 129–177 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Flach, P.A., Kakas, A.C.: Abductive and inductive reasoning: background and issues. In: Flach, P.A., Kakas, A.C. (eds.) Abduction and Induction — Essays on their Relation and Integration. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gelfond, M., Przymusinska, H., Przymusinski, T.: On the relationship between circumscription and negation as failure. Artificial Intelligence 38, 75–94 (1989)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Inoue, K.: Linear resolution for consequence finding. Artificial Intelligence 56, 301–353 (1992)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Inoue, K., Sakama, C.: A fixpoint characterization of abductive logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 27(2), 107–136 (1996)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Inoue, K.: Automated abduction. In: Kakas, A.C., Sadri, F. (eds.) Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2408, pp. 311–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Inoue, K.: Induction as consequence finding. Machine Learning 55, 109–135 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Inoue, K., Saito, H.: Circumscription policies for induction. In: Camacho, R., King, R., Srinivasan, A. (eds.) ILP 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3194, pp. 164–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lachiche, N.: Abduction and induction from a non-monotonic reasoning perspective. In: Flach, P.A., Kakas, A.C. (eds.) Abduction and Induction — Essays on their Relation and Integration. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lifschitz, V.: Answer set programming and plan generation. Artificial Intelligence 138, 39–54 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Minker, J.: On indefinite data bases and the closed world assumption. In: Loveland, D.W. (ed.) CADE 1982. LNCS, vol. 138, pp. 292–308. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. McDermott, D.: Nonmonotonic logic II: nonmonotonic modal theories. Journal of the ACM 29, 33–57 (1982)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Muggleton, S.: Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing 13, 245–286 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nienhuys-Cheng, S.-H., de Wolf, R.: Foundations of Inductive Logic Programming. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1228. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Plotkin, G.D.: A note on inductive generalization. In: Meltzer, B., Michie, D. (eds.) Machine Intelligence, vol. 5, pp. 153–163. Edinburgh University Press (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reiter, R.: On closed world databases. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 55–76. Plenum, New York (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sakama, C.: Inverse entailment in nonmonotonic logic programs. In: Cussens, J., Frisch, A.M. (eds.) ILP 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1866, pp. 209–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Sakama, C.: Nonmonotonic inductive logic programming. In: Eiter, T., Faber, W., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) LPNMR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2173, pp. 62–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sakama, C.: Induction from answer sets in nonmonotonic logic programs. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 6(2), 203–231 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Communication Sciences, Wakayama University, Sakaedani, Wakayama, 640-8510, Japan

    Chiaki Sakama

  2. National Institute of Informatics, 2-1-2 Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8430, Japan

    Katsumi Inoue

Authors
  1. Chiaki Sakama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katsumi Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Filip Železný Nada Lavrač

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Sakama, C., Inoue, K. (2008). Brave Induction. In: Železný, F., Lavrač, N. (eds) Inductive Logic Programming. ILP 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5194. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85928-4_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85928-4_21

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-85927-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-85928-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation