A Strong Complete Schema for Inductive Functional Logic Programming
A new IFLP schema is presented as a general framework for the induction of functional logic programs (FLP). Since narrowing (which is the most usual operational semantics of (FLP) performs a infication (mgu) followed by a replacement, we introduce two main operators in our IFLP schema: a generalisation and an inverse replacement or property of equality. We prove that this schema is strong complete in tha way that, given some evidence, it is possible to induce any program which could have generated that evidence. We outline some possible restrictions in order to improve the tractability of the schema. We also show that inverse narrowing is just a special case of our IFLP schema. Finally, a straightforward extension of the IFLP schema to function invention is illustrated.
KeywordsFunctional Logic Programming Inductive Logic Programming Function Invention Induction of Auxiliary Functions Narrowing Inverse Narrowing
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.P.G. Bosco, E. Giovannetti, G. Levi, C. Moiso, and C. Palamidessi. A complete semantic characterization of K-leaf, a logic language with partial functions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 318–327. IEEE Computer Society Press, N.W., Washington, 1987.Google Scholar
- 3.J. Hernández and M.J. Ramírez. Inverse Narrowing for the Induction of Functional Logic Programs. In Proc. Joint Conference on Declarative Programming, APPIA-GULP-PRODE’98, PAGES 379–393, 1998.Google Scholar
- 4.S. Hölldobler. Equational Logic Programming. In Proc. Second IEEE Symp. On Logic In Computer Science, pages 335–346. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1987.Google Scholar
- 5.H. Hussmann. Unification in conditional-equational theories. Technical report, Fakultät für Mathematik und Informatik, Universitat Passau, 1986.Google Scholar
- 6.J. Jaffar, J.-L. Lassez, and M.J. Maher. A logic programming language scheme. In D. de Groot and G. Lindstrom, editors, Logic Programming, Functions, Relations and Equations, pages 441–468. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.Google Scholar
- 7.K. Khan, S. Muggleton, and R. Parson. Repeat learning using predicate invention. In C.D. Page, editor, Proc. of the 8th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming, ILK’98, volume 1446 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 165–174. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.S. Muggleton and W. Buntine. Machine invention of first-order predicates by inverting resolution. In S. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, pages 261–280. Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- 14.U.S. Reddy. Narrowing as the Operational Semantic of Functional Languages. In Proc. Second IEEE Int’l Symp. on Logic Programming, pages 138–151. IEEE, 1985.Google Scholar
- 15.J.H. Siekmann. Universal unification. In 7th Int’l Conf. on Automated Deduction, volume 170 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–42. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.Google Scholar
- 17.A Varsek. Genetic Inductive Logic Progamming. PhD thesis, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1993.Google Scholar