Using Abduction to Learn Horn Theories

  • D. Gunetti
Conference paper
Part of the International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 363)


A method for learning Horn theories based on a systematic use of abduction is presented. Abduction is applied on the basis of the examples provided initially and of the hypothesis space to generate queries for missing positive and negative examples. The added examples are treated in the same way again and again until no more examples can be added. The process can be seen as a way of exploring the hypothesis space in order to build backward all the existing proof trees for the initial examples. The abductive completion procedure is used to solve the problems of extensional top-down learning methods. By means of abduction, a solution consistent with respect to the positive and negative examples given initially can always be found, if it exists in the hypothesis space.


Logic Program Target Concept Inductive Logic Programming Horn Clause Derivation Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    D. W. Aha, S. Lapointe, C. X. Ling, and S. Matwin. Learning Recursive Relations with Randomly Selected Small Training Sets. In William W. Cohen, editor, Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, pages 12–18, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1994. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    F. Bergadano and D. Gunetti. Inductive Synthesis of Logic Programs and Inductive Logic Programming. In Proc. Int. Workshop on Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation (LOPSTR-93) Leuven, Belgium, 1993. Springer Verlag, LNCS, in press.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    F. Bergadano and D. Gunetti. An interactive system to learn functional logic programs. In Proc. 18th Int. Joint. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence pages 10441049, Chambery, France, 1993. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    F. Bergadano and D. Gunetti. Inductive Logic Programming: from Machine Learning to Software Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    L. Birnbaum and G. Collins, editors. Proc. of the 8th Int. conference on Machine Learning, part VI: Learning Relations. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    I. Bratko. Qualitative modelling: learning and control. In Proc. IJCAI, Prague, Czechoslovakia, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    I. Bratko, S. Muggleton, and A. Varsek. Learning qualitative models of dynamic systems. In S. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, pages 437–452. Academic Press, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    W. Cohen. Abductive Explanation-Based Learning: a Solution to the Multiple Inconsistent Explanation Problem. Machine Learning, 8: 167–219, 1992.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    L. DeRaedt and M. Bruynooghe. CLINT: a Multistrategy Interactive Concept-Learner and Theory Revision System. In R. S. Michalski and G. Tecuci, editors, Proc. Workshop on Multistrategy Learning, pages 175–190, Harpers Ferry, VA, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. Dzeroski and B. Dolsak. Comparison of ilp systems on the problem of finite element mesh design. In Proc. 6th ISSEK Workshop, Jozef Stefan Inst., Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    C. Feng. Inducing temporal fault diagnostic rules from a qualitative model. In S. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, pages 471–493. Academic Press, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    P. Idestam-Almquist. Generalization of Clauses. Ph.D. Thesis, Stockholm University, Sweden, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. King, S. Muggleton, R. Lewis, and M. Sternberg. Drug design by machine learning: The use of inductive logic programming to model the structure-activity relationships of trimethoprim analogues binding to dihydrofolate reductase. Proc. National Academy of Sciences, USA, 89: 11322–11326. 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    R. King, S. Muggleton, and M. Sternberg. Protein secondary structure prediction using logic. In Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming, Tokio. Japan, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. King and M. Sternberg. Machine Learning approach for the prediction of protein secondary structure. Journal of Molecolary Biology. 216: 441–457. 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    W. Van Laer, L. Dehaspe, and L. DeRaedt. Applications of a logical discovery engine. Leuven, Belgium, 1994. Technical Report. Dept. of CS. Univ. of Leuven.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    S. Lapointe and S. Matwin. Sub-unification: a tool for efficient induction of recursive programs. In D. Sleeman and P. Edwards, editors. Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Machine Learning. pages 273–281. Aberdeen, Scotland, 1992. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    N. Lavrac, S. Dzeroski, V. Pirnat, and V. Krizman. Learning rules for early diagnoses of rheumatic diseases. In Proc. 3rd Scandinavian Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 138–119. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    S. Muggleton. Machine Invention of First Order Predicates by Inverting Resolution. In Proc. of the Fifth Int. Uonf. on Machine Learning, pages 339–352, Ann Arbor, MI, 1988.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S. Muggleton, editor. Inductive Logic Programming. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    S. Muggleton and C. Feng. Efficient Induction of Logic Programs. In Proc. of the first conf. on Algorithmic Learning Theory Tokyo, Japan, 1990. OHMSHA.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    G. Plotkin. A note on Inductive Generalization. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence 5, pages 153–163, 1970.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    G. Plotkin. A further note on Inductive Generalization. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence 6, pages 101–124, 1971.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R. Quinlan. Learning Logical Definitions from Relations. Machine Learning, 5: 239–266, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    C. Rouveirol, editor. Proc. of the ECAI Workshop on Logical Approaches to Learning. ECCAI, Vienna., Austria, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    C. Rouveirol and J. F. Puget. Beyond Inversion of Resolution. In Porter and Mooney, editors, Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, pages 122–130, 1990.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    E. Y. Shapiro. An Algorithm that Infers Theories from Facts. In Proc. of the 7th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 446–451, Vancouver, Canada, 1981.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    E. Y. Shapiro. Algorithmic Program Debugging. MIT Press. 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Gunetti
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TurinTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations