Journal of Automated Reasoning

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 301–317 | Cite as

Explicit representation of terms defined by counter examples

  • J. -L. Lassez
  • K. Marriott


Anti-unification guarantees the existence of a term which is an explicit representation of the most specific generalization of a collection of terms. This provides a formal basis for learning from examples. Here we address the dual problem of computing a generalization given a set of counter examples. Unlike learning from examples an explicit, finite representation for the generalization does not always exist. We show that the problem is decidable by providing an algorithm which, given an implicit representation will return a finite explicit representation or report that none exists. Applications of this result to the problem of negation as failure and to the representation of solutions to systems of equations and inequations are also mentioned.

Key words

Herbrand universe counter examples learning disjunctive concepts machine learning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Cla78]
    K. Clark, ‘Negation as Failure’, in H. Gallaire and J. Minker (eds), Logic & Databases, Plenum Press, New York, 1978, pp. 293–322.Google Scholar
  2. [Col84]
    A. Colmerauer, ‘Equations and Inequations on Finite and Infinite Trees’, FGCS'84 Proceedings, Nov. 1984, 85–99.Google Scholar
  3. [Hue76]
    G. Huet, ‘Resolution d'Equations Dans Des Langages D'Ordre 1,2, ..., ω’ (These d'Etat). Universite de Paris VII, Dec. 1976.Google Scholar
  4. [Hue80]
    G. Huet, ‘Confluent Reductions: Abstract Properties and Applications to Term Rewriting Systems’, JACM, 27, No. 4, Oct. 1980, 797–821.Google Scholar
  5. [JLL83]
    J. Jaffar, J-L. Lassez, and J. Lloyd, ‘Completeness of the Negation-As-Failure Rule’, IJCAI 83, 1983, 500–506.Google Scholar
  6. [LMM86]
    J-L. Lassez, M. J. Maher, and K. Marriott, ‘Unification Revisited’, Tech. Report, IBM Thomas J. Watson Lab., 1986.Google Scholar
  7. [Mic83]
    R. S. Michalski, ‘A Theory and Methodology of Inductive Learning’, Artificial Intelligence 20, 1983, 111–161.Google Scholar
  8. [Mit78]
    T. M. Mitchell, ‘Version Spaces: An Approach to Concept Learning’, Ph.D. Thesis, STAN-CS-78-711, Comp. Science Dept., Stanford University, Dec. 1978.Google Scholar
  9. [Nai85]
    L. Naish, ‘The MU-Prolog 3.2 Reference Manual’, Tech. Rpt. 85/11, Comp. Science Dept., Melbourne University, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. [Nai86]
    L. Naish, ‘Negation and Quantifiers in NU-Prolog’, Proc. 3rd Conf. on Logic Programming, July 1986, 624–634.Google Scholar
  11. [Plo70]
    G. D. Plotkin, ‘A Note on Inductive Generalization’, in B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence 5, 1970, 153–163.Google Scholar
  12. [Plo71]
    G. D. Plotkin, ‘A Further Note on Inductive Generalization’, in B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence 6, 1971, 101–124.Google Scholar
  13. [Rey70]
    J. C. Reynolds, ‘Transformational Systems and the Algebraic Structure of Atomic Formulas’, in B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.), Machine Intelligence 5, 1970, 135–152.Google Scholar
  14. [Rob65]
    J. A. Robinson, ‘A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle’, JACM, 12, No. 1, Jan. 1965, 23–41.Google Scholar
  15. [Ver80]
    S. A. Vere, ‘Multilevel Counterfactuals for Generalization of Relational Concepts and Productions’, Artificial Intelligence 14, 1980, 139–164.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. -L. Lassez
    • 1
  • K. Marriott
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM Thomas J. Watson Research CenterYorktown HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations