Extending inverse resolution to build up abstractions

  • A. Giordana
  • L. Saitta
  • R. Finelli
  • M. Paderni
  • D. Roverso
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 549)


Abstraction is a conceptual framework potentially unifying and integrating different methodologies developed in machine learning and problem solving. According to the common understanding of the term, abstraction is a mapping between languages, and, then, in many learning tasks it can be so formulated. On the contrary, in this paper abstraction is defined as a mapping between models, implicitly extending Tenenberg's restricted predicate mapping in order to include more complex abstraction schemes and to cope with the problem of inconsistency in the abstract model.

In our proposal, the abstraction mapping is axiomatized by means of a theory TA, defining the semantics of the relations in the abstract model starting from the ones in the ground model. Therefore, this form of abstraction is called semantic and must be evaluated using a deductive mechanism instead of a purely syntactic rewriting. Afterwards, a restricted class of semantic abstraction (CP-Abstraction) is characterized: it has the property of preserving concept instances, with respect to a given model, and the more-general-than relation between formulas. CP-Abstraction fits in the paradigm of inverse resolution, already proposed as a framework for constructive learning and a restricted form of absorption rule is introduced to compute it.

Inverse resolution, in its original formulation, does not allow important abstraction types, such as the definition of a compound object starting from its parts, to be defined. A new operation, called term abstraction, is then introduced.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Newell, H. Simon: Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. Plaisted: “Theorem Proving with Abstraction”, Artificial Intelligence, 16, 47–108 (1981).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Tenenberg: “Preserving Consistency across Abstraction Mappings”, Proc IJCAI-87, (Milano, Italy, 1987), pp. 1011–1014.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    C. Knoblock: “Abstractiong the Tower of Hanoi”, Working notes of the AGAA-90 Workshop, (Boston, MA, 1990), pp. 13–23.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. Knoblock: “Learning Hierarchies of Abstraction Spaces”, Proc. 6th Int. Workshop on Machine Learning (Ithaca, NY, 1989).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. Drastal, G. Czako, S. Raatz: “Induction in an Abstraction Space”, Proc. IJCAI-89, (Detroit, MI, 1989), pp. 708–712.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    I. Mozetic, “Abstractions in Model-Based Diagnosis”, Working notes of the AGAA-90 Workshop, (Boston, MA, 1990), pp. 64–75.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    A.Giordana, L.Saitta, “Abstraction: a General Framework for Learning”, Working notes of the AGAA-90 Workshop, (Boston, MA, 1990), pp. 245–256.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Carbonell, C. Knoblock, S. Minton: “PRODIGY: An Integrated Architecture for Planning and Learning”, Report CMU-CS-89-189, Carnegie-Mellon Univ. (Pittsbugh, PA), (1989).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R.Stepp, R. Michalski, “Conceptual Clustering, Inventing Goal-Oriented Classifications of Structured Objects”, in Michalski R., Carbonell J. & Mitchell T.(Eds) Machine Learning: An AI Approach, Vol. II. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann (1985), pp. 471–498.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    P.Utgoff, “Shift of Bias For Inductive Concept Learning”, in Michalski R., Carbonell J. & Mitchell T.(Eds) Machine Learning: An AI Approach, Vol. II. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann (1985), pp. 107–148.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S.Muggleton, W.Buntine, “Machine Invention of First-Order Predicates by Inverting Resolution”, Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, (Ann Arbor, MI, 1988), pp.339–352.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    C.Rouveirol, J.F. Puget,“Beyond Inversion of Resolution”, Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, (Austin, TE, 1990). pp. 122–131.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    W. Buntine: “Generalized Subsumption and its Applications to Induction and Redundancy”, Artificial Intelligence, 36, 149–176 (1988).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    G.Plotkin, “Automatic Methods of Inductive Inference”, Doctoral thesis, Edimburg University.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. Muggleton, “Duce, an Oracle Based Approach to Constructive Induction,” in Proc IJCAI-87, (Milano, Italy, 1987), pp. 287–292.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Giordana
    • 1
  • L. Saitta
    • 3
  • R. Finelli
    • 1
  • M. Paderni
    • 1
  • D. Roverso
    • 2
  1. 1.Dip. di InformaticaUniversità di TorinoTorinoItaly
  2. 2.Computing Science Dpt.University of AberdeenAberdeenScotland, UK
  3. 3.Dip. di Meccanica Strutturale e Progettazione AutomaticaUniversità di TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations