Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inverse entailment and progol

  • Special Issue
  • Published:
New Generation Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper firstly provides a re-appraisal of the development of techniques for inverting deduction, secondly introduces Mode-Directed Inverse Entailment (MDIE) as a generalisation and enhancement of previous approaches and thirdly describes an implementation of MDIE in the Progol system. Progol is implemented in C and available by anonymous ftp. The re-assessment of previous techniques in terms of inverse implication leads to new results for learning from positive data and inverting implication between pairs of clauses.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bain, M. and Muggleton, S., “Non-Monotonic Learning,” inMachine Intelligence 12 (D. Michie, ed.), Oxford University Press, 1991.

  2. Bratko, I., Muggleton, S., and Varsek, A., “Learning Qualitative Models of Dynamic Systems,” inProceedings of the Eighth International Machine Learning Workshop, San Mateo, Ca, Morgan-Kaufmann, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clocksin, W.F. and Mellish, C.S.,Programming in Prolog, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen, W., “Learnability of Restricted Logic Programs,” inProceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (S. Muggleton, ed.) (Technical Report IJS-DP-6707 of the Josef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia), pp. 41–72, 1993.

  5. Conklin, D. and Witten, I., “Complexity-Based Induction,”Technical Report, Department of Computing and Information Science, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dolsak, B. and Muggleton, S., “The Application of Inductive Logic Programming to Finite Element Mesh Design,” inInductive Logic Programming (S. Muggleton, ed.), Academic Press, London, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dormer, R., “An Inductive Logic Programming Implementation,” MScthesis, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Oxford, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Feng, C., “Inducing Temporal Fault Diagnostic Rules from a Qualitative Model,” inInductive Logic Programming (S. Muggleton, ed.), Academic Press, London, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gillies, D.A., “Confirmation Theory and Machine Learning,” inProceedings of the Second Inductive Logic Programming Workshop, Tokyo,ICOT Technical Report, TM-1182, 1992.

  10. Gold, E.M., “Language Identification in the Lmit,”Information and Control, 10, pp. 447–474, 1967.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Gottlob, G., “Subsumption and Implication,”Information Processing Letters, 24, 2, pp. 109–111, 1987.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Grobelnik, M., “Markus—An Optimized Model Inference System,” inProceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Logical Approaches to Machine Learning, 1992.

  13. Idestam-Almquist, P., “Learning Missing Clauses by Inverse Resolution,” inProceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo, ICOT, pp. 610–617, 1992.

  14. Idestam-Almquist, P., “Generalization of Clauses”PhD Thesis, Sect. 1, Stockholm univ. 1993.

  15. Jevons, W.S., “On the Mechanisation of Deductive Inference,”Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 160, pp. 497–518, 1870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jevons, W.S.,The Principles of Science: A Treatise on Logic and Scientific Method, Macmillan, London, 1874.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., and Toni, F., “Abductive Logic Programming,”Journal of Logic and Computation, 2, 1992.

  18. King, R., Muggleton, S., Lewis, R., and Sternberg, M., “Drug Design by Machine Learning: The Use of Inductive Logic Programming to Model the Structure-Activity Relationships of Trimethoprim Analogues Binding to Dihydrofolate Reductase,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 23, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Krishnamurthy, V.,Combinatorics: Theory and Applications, Ellis Horwood, Chichester, England, 1986.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. van der Laag, P.R. and Nienhuys-Cheng., “Subsumption and Refinement in Model Inference,” inProceedings of the 6th European Conference on Machine Learning, volume 667 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (P. Brazdil, ed.) Springer-Verlag, pp. 95–114, 1993.

  21. van der Laag, P.R. and Nienhuys-Cheng., “Existence and Nonexistence of Complete Refinement Operators,” inProceedings of the 7th European Conference on Machine Learning (F. Bergadano and L. De Raedt, eds.),volume 784 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, pp. 307–322, 1994.

  22. Lapointe, S. and Matwin, S., “Sub-Unification: A Tool for Efficient Induction of Recursive Programs,” inProceedings of the Ninth International Machine Learning Conference, Los Altos, Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lee, C., “A Completeness Theorem and a Computer Program for Finding Theorems Derivable from Given Axioms,”Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Li, M. and Vitanyi, P.,An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Ling, C.X., “Learning the Past Tense of English Verbs: The Symbolic Pattern Associators vs. Connectionist Models,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1, pp. 209–229, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lloyd, J.W.,Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Meltzer, B., “Power Amplification for Automatic Theorem Proving,” inMachine Intelligence 5 (B. Meltzer and D. Michie, eds.), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 165–179, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Michalski, R. and Larson, J., “Incremental Generation of vl1 Hypotheses: The Underlying Methodology and the Description of Program AQ11,”ISG 83–5, Computer Science Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1980.

  29. Muggleton, S., “Duce, an Oracle Based Approach to Constructive Induction,” inIJCAI-87, Kaufmann, pp. 287–292, 1987.

  30. Muggleton, S., “A Strategy for Constructing New Predicates in First Order Logic,” inProceedings of the Third European Working Session on Learning, Pitman, pp. 123–130, 1988.

  31. Muggleton, S., “Inductive Logic Programming,”New Generation Computing, 8, 4, pp. 295–318, 1991.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Muggleton, S., “Inverting the Resolution Principle,” inMachine Intelligence 12, Oxford University Press, 1991.

  33. Muggleton, S., “Inverting Implication,” inProceedings of the Second Inductive Logic Programming Workshop, Tokyo,ICOT Technical Report, TM-1182, 1992.

  34. Muggleton, S., “Bayesian Inductive Logic Programming,” inProceedings of the Eleventh International Machine Learning Conference (W. Cohen and H. Hirsh, eds.), San Mateo, CA, Morgan-Kaufmann, pp. 371–379, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Muggleton, S., “Inductive Logic Programming: Derivations, Successes and Shortcomings,”SIGART Bulletin, 5, 1 pp. 5–11, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Muggleton, S., “Predicate Invention and Utilization,”Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 6, 1, pp. 127–130, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Muggleton, S. and Buntine, W., “Machine Invention of First-Order Predicates by Inverting Resolution,” inProceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning, Kaufmann, pp. 339–352, 1988.

  38. Muggleton, S. and Feng, C., “Efficient Induction of Logic Programs,” inProceedings of the First Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, Tokyo, Ohmsha, 1990.

  39. Muggleton, S., King, R., and Sternberg, M., “Protein Secondary Structure Prediction Using Logic-Based Machine Learning,”Protein Engineering, 5, 7, pp. 647–657, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Muggleton, S. and Page, C.D., “Self-Saturation of Definite Clauses,” inProceedings of the Fourth International Inductive Logic Programming Workshop, (S. Wrobel, ed.) Gesellschaft für Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung MBH, pp. 161–174, 1994.GMD-Studien Nr 237.

  41. Muggleton, S. and Page, D., “Beyond First- Order Learning: Inductive Learning with Higher-Order Logic,”Technical Report, PRG-TR-13-94, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Oxford, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Muggleton, S. and Page, D., “A Learnability Model for Universal Representations,”Technical Report, PRG-TR-3-94, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Oxford, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Muggleton, S. and De Raedt, L., “Inductive Logic Programming: Theory and Methods,”Journal of Logic Programming, 19, 20, pp. 629–679, 1994.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Muggleton, S., Srinivasan, A., and Bain, M., “Compression, Significance and Accuracy,” inProceedings of the Ninth International Machine Learning Conference (D. Sleeman and P. Edwards, eds.), San Mateo, CA, Morgan-Kaufmann, pp. 338–347, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nilsson, N.J.,Principles of Artificial Intelligence, Tioga, Palo Alto, CA, 1980.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Plotkin, G.D., “A Note on Inductive Generalisation,” inMachine Intelligence 5 (B. Meltzer and D. Michie, eds.), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 153–163, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Plotkin, G.D., “Automatic Methods of Inductive Inference,”Ph.D thesis, Edinburgh University, August 1971.

  48. Popplestone, R.J., “An Experiment in Automatic Induction,” inMachine Intelligence 5 (B. Meltzer and D. Michie, eds.), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 203–215, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Quinlan, J.R., “Learning Logical Definitions from Relations,”Machine Learning, 5, pp. 239–266, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Quinlan, J.R., “Past Tenses of Verbs and First-Order Learning,” inProceedings of the 7th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (C. Zhang, J. Debenham, and D. Lukose, eds.), Singapore, World Scientific, pp. 13–20, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Reynolds, J.C., “Transformational Systems and the Algebraic Structure of Atomic Formulas,” inMachine Intelligence 5 (B. Meltzer and D. Michie, eds.), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 135–151, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rissanen, J., “Modeling by Shortest Data Description,”Automatica, 14, pp. 465–471, 1978.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Robinson, J.A., “A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle,”JACM, 12, 1, pp. 23–41, January 1965.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Rouveirol, C., “Extensions of Inversion of Resolution Applied to Theory Completion,” inInductive Logic Programming (S. Muggleton, ed.), Academic Press, London, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rouveirol C. and Puget, J-F., “A Simple and General Solution for Inverting Resolution,” inEWSL-89, London, Pitman, pp. 201–210, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W.,The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1963.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. Shapiro, E.Y.,Algorithmic Program Debugging, MIT Press, 1983.

  58. Srinivasan, A., Muggleton, S.H., King, R.D., and Sternberg, M.J.E., “Mutagenesis; ILP Experiments in a Non-Determinate Biological Domain,” inProceedings of the Fourth International Inductive Logic Programming Workshop (S. Wrobel, ed.), Gesellschaft für Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung MBH, 1994.GMD-Studien Nr 237.

  59. Srinivasan, A., Muggleton, S.H., King, R.D., and Sternberg, M.J.E., “The Effect of Background Knowledge in Inductive Logic Programming: A Case Study,”Technical Report, PRG-TR-9-95, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Oxford, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Srinivasan, A., Muggleton, S.H., King, R.D., and Sternberg, M.J.E., “Theories for Mutagenicity: A Study of First-Order and Feature Based Induction,”Technical Report, PRG-TR-8-95, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Oxford, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wirth, R., “Completing Logic Programs by Inverse Resolution,” inEWSL-89, London, Pitman, pp. 239–250, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oxford University Computing Laboratory, Wolfson Building, Parks Rood, OX1 3QD, Oxford, UK

    Stephen Muggleton

Authors
  1. Stephen Muggleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Stephen Muggleton, BSc, PhD., MA(Oxon): He is an EPSRC Advanced Research Fellow at Oxford University Computing Laboratory. He was previously Fujitsu Associate Professor at the University of Tokyo and Director of Academic Research at the Turing Institute, Glasgow. He is author of “Inductive Acquisition of Expert Knowledge”, published by Addison-Wesley, and editor of “Inductive Logic Programming”, published by Academic Press and Machine Intelligence 13, published by Oxford University Press. He was chief designer of RuleMaster, which was used by BrainWare to build BMT, the world’s largest expert system. In 1990 he founded the field of Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) and has been Program Chair of three international workshops on this topic. He is Executive Editor of the Machine Intelligence Series, published by Oxford University Press, and lectures on ILP at the Oxford University Computing Laboratory. He is presently developing a computational learning model for ILP called Ulearnability. He has recently published results in the Proceedings of the Royal Society and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on successful applications of ILP to problems in Molecular Biology.

About this article

Cite this article

Muggleton, S. Inverse entailment and progol. NGCO 13, 245–286 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037227

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037227

Keywords

Search

Navigation