A model of inductive reasoning

  • Peter A. Flach
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 808)


This paper presents a formal characterization of the process of inductive hypothesis formation. This is achieved by formulating minimal properties for inductive consequence relations. These properties are justified by the fact that they are sufficient to allow identification in the limit. By means of stronger sets of properties, we also define both standard and non-standard forms of inductive reasoning, and give an application of the latter.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Flach, P.A.: “Inductive characterisation of database relations,” in: Z.W. Ras, M. Zemankowa & M.L. Emrich (eds.), Proc. International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Amsterdam: North-Holland (1990) 371–378. Full version appeared as ITK Research Report no. 23.Google Scholar
  2. Flach, P.A.: “An analysis of various forms of ‘jumping to conclusions',” in: K.P. Jantke (ed.), Analogical and Inductive Inference AII'92, Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence 642, Berlin: Springer Verlag (1992) 170–186.Google Scholar
  3. Flach, P.A.: “Predicate invention in Inductive Data Engineering,” in: P.B. Bradzil (ed.), Proc. European Conference on Machine Learning ECML'93, Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence 667, Berlin: Springer Verlag (1993) 83–94.Google Scholar
  4. Gabbay, D.M.: “Theoretical foundations for non-monotonic reasoning in expert systems,” in: K.R. Apt (ed.), Logics and Models of Concurrent Systems, Berlin: Springer Verlag (1985) 439–457.Google Scholar
  5. Gärdenfors., P.: Knowledge in Flux, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. Gärdenfors, P.: “Belief revision and nonmonotonic logic: two sides of the same coin?” in: Proc. Ninth European Conference on AI, London: Pitman (1990) 768–773.Google Scholar
  7. Gold, E.M.: “Language identification in the limit,” in: Information and Control 10 (1967), 447–474.Google Scholar
  8. Kraus, S., D. Lehmann and M. Magidor: “Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics,” in: Artificial Intelligence 44 (1990) 167–207.Google Scholar
  9. Mitchell, T.M.: “Generalization as search,” in: Artificial Intelligence 18 (1982) 2, 203–226.Google Scholar
  10. Shapiro, E.Y.: Algorithmic program debugging. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. Shoham, Y.: “A semantical approach to nonmonotonic logics,” in: Proc. Eleventh International Joint Conference on AI, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann (1987) 1304–1310.Google Scholar
  12. Zadrozny, W.: On rules of abduction. IBM Research Report (August 1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Flach
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Language Technology & Artificial IntelligenceTilburg UniversityLE TilburgNetherlands

Personalised recommendations