Concept of inductive programming supporting anthropomorphic information technology

  • G. M. Sergievsky
Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

A new original approach to the formalization and implementation methods for the problem of inductive programming is described. This approach makes it possible for the first time to describe a wide range of problems within the given formalization based on examples from the implementation of problem-oriented languages to the development of applied systems with the help of these languages. Methods for passing on “procedure knowledge” that are accepted in information technologies and human communication are discussed and the concept of an “anthropomorphic information technology” is formulated. The general scheme for constructing this system based on the given technology is described. The fundamental role played by the mechanism of partial evaluation in providing the efficiency of implementation and maintenance of the extension mode for inductively specified languages is stressed. An example of inductive specification of a simple programming language and discuss the prospects of using the concept proposed is presented.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Kalan, The Main Concepts of Neural Networks (Vil’Yams, St. Petersburg, 2001).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. D. Summers, “A Methodology for LISP Program Construction from Examples,” ACM 24, 162–175 (1977).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. M. Sergievsky and N. G. Volchenkov, Functional and Logic Programming (Akademiya, Moscow, 2010) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Kitzelmann, “Inductive Synthesis of Functional Programs: An Explanation Based Generalization Approach,” Machine Learning Research 7, 429–454 (2006).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Online Platform on Inductive Programming http://www.industive-rrogramming.org/.
  6. 6.
    E. Kitzelmann, Analytical Inductive Functional Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2009, No. 5438, P. 87–102.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Kitzelmann and M. Hofmann, “IGOR2, an Analytical Inductive Functional Programming System: Tool Demo,” in ACM/SIGPLAN Workshop Partial Evaluation and Semantics-Based Program Manipulation Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGPLAN workshop on Partial evaluation and program manipulation Madrid, Spain, 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. H. Muggleton, “Inductive Logic Programming,” New Generation Computing 8((4)), 295–318 (1991).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. H. Muggleton and L. De Raedt, “Inductive Logic Programming: Theory and Methods,” Logic Programming 19, 629–679 (1994).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Blockeel, J. Shavlik, and P. Tadepalli, in Proceedings of 17th Conference on Inductive Logic Programming ILP’2007 (Springer, 2007), p. 306.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. David and B. A. Wolber, Myers Stimulus-Response PBD: Demonstrating “When” as Well as “What” in Your Wish Is My Command: Programming by Example, Ed. by H. Lieberman (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, 2001), pp. 321–344.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Site of BASEGROUP Company: http://www.basegrour.ru/libraru/methodologu/kdd/.
  13. 13.
    O. P. Mosalov, V. G. Red’ko, and V. A. Nepomnyashchikh, A Model of Search Behavior of an Animat, Preprint: http://www.niisi.ru/iont/projests/rfbr/90197/Preprint.pdf.

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. M. Sergievsky
    • 1
  1. 1.National Nuclear Research University MEPHIMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations