On inductive inference of cyclic structures

  • Michael J. Maher
  • Peter J. Stuckey
Article

Abstract

We examine the problem of inductive inference in the domain of pointer-based data structures. We show how these data structures can be formalized as rational trees. Our main technical results concern the expressiveness of a language of rational term expressions. These results place limitations on techniques of inductive inference for this description language. The results are also relevant to implementation of negation in logic programming languages.

Keywords

Neural Network Artificial Intelligence Data Structure Complex System Nonlinear Dynamics 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    D. Chan, Constructive negation based on completed database,Proc. 5th Symp. on Logic Programming (1988) pp. 111–125.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    K.L. Clark, Negation as failure, in:Logic and Databases, eds. H. Gallaire and J. Minker (Plenum Press, New York, 1978) pp. 293–322.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Colmerauer, Prolog and infinite trees, in:Logic Programming, eds. K.L. Clark and S.-A. Tarnlund (Academic Press, New York, 1982) pp. 231–251.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Colmerauer, Equations and inequations on finite and infinite trees,Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo (1984) pp. 85–99.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. Comon, Unification et disunification: Theorie et applications, Ph.D. Thesis, Grenoble (1988).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    H. Comon, Disunification, in:Computational Logic: Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson, eds. J.-L. Lassez and G. Plotkin (MIT Press, 1991) pp. 322–359.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    H. Comon and P. Lescanne, Equational problems and disunification, J. Symb. Comp., to appear.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    B. Courcelle, Fundamental properties of infinite trees, Theor. Comp. Sci. 25(1983)95–169.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. Courcelle, Equivalences and transformation sof regular systems — application to recursive program schemes and grammars, Theor. Comp. Sci. 42(1986)1–122.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    E. Eder, Properties of substitutions and unifications, J. Symb. Comp. 1(1985)31–46.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    G. Huet, Resolution d'equations dans des langages d'ordre 1, 2,⋯,gw, These d'Etat, Université de Paris VII (1976).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    G. Huet, Confluent reductions: Abstract properties and applications to term rewriting systems, J. ACM 27(1980)797–821.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    J. Jaffar and J.-L. Lassez, Constraint logic Programming,Proc. Conf. on Principles of Programming Languages (1987) pp. 111–119.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Jaffar, J.-L. Lassez and M.J. Maher, Prolog-II as an instance of the logic programming language scheme, in:Formal Descriptions of Programming Concepts III, ed. M. Wirsing (North-Holland, 1987) pp. 275–299.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. Jaffar and P.J. Stuckey, Semantics of infinite tree logic programming, Theor. Comp. Sci. 46(1986)141–158.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    E. Kounalis, An algorithm for learning from examples and counterexamples, Manuscript (1989).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    K. Kunen, Negation in logic programming, J. Logic Progr. 4(1987)289–308.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    K. Kunen, Answer sets and negation as failure,Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, Melbourne (1987) pp. 219–228.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    G. Kuper, K. McAloon, K. Palem and K. Perry, Efficient parallel algorithms for anti-unification and relative complement,Proc. 3rd Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, Edinburgh (1988) pp. 112–120.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    J.-L. Lassez and K.G. Marriott, Explicit representation of terms defined by counter examples, J. Autom. Reasoning 3(1987)301–317.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    J.-L. Lassez, M.J. Maher and K.G. Marriott, Unification revisited, in:Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, ed. J. Minker (Kaufmann, 1987).Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    J.-L. Lassez, M.J. Maher and K. Marriott, Elimination of negation in term algebras,Proc. Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (1991).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J.W. Lloyd,Foundations of Logic Programming (Springer, 1984).Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    M.J Maher, On parameterized substitutions, IBM Research Report RC16042, T.J. Watson Research Center (1990).Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    M.J. Maher, Logic semantics for a class of committed-choice programs,Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, Melbourne (1987) pp. 858–876.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    M.J. Maher, Complete axiomatization of the algebras of finite, rational and infinite trees,Proc. 3rd Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, Edinburgh (1988) pp. 348–357. Full version: IBM Research Report, T.J. Watson Researcn Center.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    M.J. Maher, Representing sets of rational trees using techniques of non-monotonic reasoning,Proc. 1st Int. Workshop on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning, eds. A. Nerode, W. Marek and V.S. Subrahmanian (MIT Press, 1991) pp. 181–195.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    K. Marriott, Finding explicit representations for subsets of the Herbrand universe, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne (1988).Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    J. Maluszyński and T. Näslund, Fail substitutions for negation as failure,Proc. NACLP 89, Cleveland (1989) pp. 461–476.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    C. Mellish, The description identification problem, Manuscript (1990).Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    T.M. Mitchell, Version spaces: A candidate elimination approach to rule learning,Proc. IJCAI-77 (1977) pp. 305–310.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    T.M. Mitchell, Generalization as search, Artificial Intelligence 18(1982)203–226.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    G. Plotkin, A note on inductive generalization,Machine Intelligence 5, eds. B. Meltzer and D. Michie (1970) pp. 153–163.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    G. Plotkin, A further note on inductive generalization,Machine Intelligence 6, eds. B. Meltzer and D. Michie (1971) pp. 153–163.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    J Reynolds, Transformational systems and the algebraic structure of atomic formulas,Machine Intelligence 5, eds. B. Meltzer and D. Michie (1970) pp. 135–152.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    T. Sato and H. Tamaki, Transformational logic programming synthesis,Proc. FGCS'84, Tokyo (1984) pp. 195–201.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    J.R. Shoenfield, Mathematical Logic (Addison-Wesley, 1967).Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    P. Stuckey, Constructive negation for constraint logic programming,Proc. LICS'91, Amsterdam (1991) pp. 328–339.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    M. Wallace, Negation by constraints: A sound and efficient implementation of negation in deductive databases,Proc. 1987 Symp. on Logic Programming (1987) pp. 253–263.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    R. Young, G. Plotkin and R. Linz, Analysis of an extended concept-learning task,Proc. IJCAI-77 (1977) p. 285.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© J.C. Baltzer AG, Science Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Maher
    • 1
  • Peter J. Stuckey
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM-T.J. Watson Research CenterYorktown HeightsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations