An analysis of various forms of ‘jumping to conclusions’

  • Peter A. Flach
Submitted Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 642)


In this paper, we discuss and relate characterisations of different forms of ‘jumping to conclusions’: Kraus, Lehmann & Magidor's analysis of plausible reasoning, the present author's characterisation of inductive reasoning, Zadrozny's account of abductive reasoning, and Gärdenfors' theory of belief revision. Our main claims are that (i) inductive reasoning can be characterised in a way similar to plausible reasoning; (ii) inductive and abductive reasoning are special cases of explanatory reasoning; and (iii) there are strong relations between belief revision and explanatory reasoning. The ultimate goal of this research is a general account of jumping to conclusions.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. P.A. Flach (1989), ‘Second-order inductive learning'. In Analogical and Inductive Inference AII'89, K.P. Jantke (ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 397, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 202–216. Full version appeared as ITK Research Report no. 10.Google Scholar
  2. P.A. FLACH (1990), ‘Inductive characterisation of database relations'. In Proc. International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Z.W. Ras, M. Zemankowa & M.L. Emrich (eds.), pp. 371–378, North-Holland, Amsterdam. Full version appeared as ITK Research Report no. 23.Google Scholar
  3. P.A. FLACH (1991), The role of explanations in inductive learning, ITK Research Report no. 30, Institute for Language Technology & Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg University, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  4. P.A. FLACH (1992), On the validity of inductive reasoning, manuscript.Google Scholar
  5. D.M. GABBAY (1985), ‘Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems'. In Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, K.R. Apt (ed.), pp. 439–457, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  6. P. GÄRDENFORS (1988), Knowledge influx, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  7. P. GÄRDENFORS (1990), ‘Belief revision and nonmonotonic logic: two sides of the same coin?' In Proc. Ninth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 768–773, Pitman, London.Google Scholar
  8. E.M. GOLD (1967), ‘Language identification in the limit', Information and Control 10, pp. 447–474.Google Scholar
  9. A.C. KAKAS, R.A. KOWALSKI & F. TONI (1992), Abductive Logic Programming. Imperial College, London, January 1992.Google Scholar
  10. S. KRAUS, D. LEHMANN & M. MAGIDOR (1990), ‘Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics', Artificial Intelligence 44, pp. 167–207.Google Scholar
  11. T.M. MITCHELL (1982), ‘Generalization as search', Artificial Intelligence 18:2, pp. 203–226.Google Scholar
  12. B. NEBEL (1989), ‘A knowledge level analysis of belief revision'. In Proc. First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  13. D. POOLE (1989), ‘Normality and faults in logic-based diagnosis'. In Proc. Logics in Computer Science, pp. 275–279, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  14. Y. SHOHAM (1987), ‘A semantical approach to nonmonotonic logics'. In Proc. Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1304–1310, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  15. W. ZADROZNY (1991), On rules of abduction. IBM Research Report, August 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Flach
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Language Technology and Artificial IntelligenceTilburg UniversityLE Tilburgthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations