Subsumption and refinement in model inference

  • Patrick R. J. van der Laag
  • Shan-Hwei Nienhuys-Cheng
Research Papers Inductive Logic Programming
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 667)


In his famous Model Inference System, Shapiro [10] uses socalled refinement operators to replace too general hypotheses by logically weaker ones. One of these refinement operators works in the search space of reduced first order sentences. In this article we show that this operator is not complete for reduced sentences, as he claims. We investigate the relations between subsumption and refinement as well as the role of a complexity measure. We present an inverse reduction algorithm which is used in a new refinement operator. This operator is complete for reduced sentences. Finally, we will relate our new refinement operator with its dual, a generalization operator, and its possible application in model inference using inverse resolution.


  1. 1.
    M. Kirschenbaum and L.S. Sterling. Refinement strategies for inductive learning of simple prolog programs. In Proceedings of IJCAI-91, Sydney, Australia, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P.D. Laird. Learning from Good and Bad Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    X. Ling. Inductive learning from good examples. In Proceedings of IJCAI-91, Sydney, Australia, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S.H. Muggleton. Inductive logic programming. In First Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, Ohmsha, Tokyo, 1990. Invited paper.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.H. Muggleton and W. Buntine. Machine invention of first-order predicates by inverting resolution. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 339–352. Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Nibblet. A study of generalisation in logic programs. In Proceedings of EWSL-88, London, 1988. Pittman.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W.E. Nijenhuis and C. Witteveen. Constructive identification with Poole's default logic. Technical Report 90-96, Faculty of Technical Mathematics and Informatics, TU-Delft, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G.D. Plotkin. A Note on Inductive Generalization. In Machine Intelligence 5, pages 153–163. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1970.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.C. Reynolds. Transformational Systems and the Algebraic Structure of Atomic Formulas. In B. Meltzer and D. Mitchie, editor, Machine Intelligence 5, pages 135–153. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1970.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E.Y. Shapiro. Inductive Inference of Theories from Facts. Technical Report 624, Department of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven. CT., 1981.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E.Y. Shapiro. Algorithmic program debugging. MIT Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P.R.J. Van der Laag. A Most General Refinement Operator for Reduced Sentences. Technical Report EUR-CS-92-03, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Dept. of Computer Science, June 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick R. J. van der Laag
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shan-Hwei Nienhuys-Cheng
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceErasmus University of RotterdamDR Rotterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Tinbergen Institutethe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations