Which hypotheses can be found with inverse entailment?
In this paper we give a completeness theorem of an inductive inference rule inverse entailment proposed by Muggleton. Our main result is that a hypothesis clause H can be derived from an example E under a background theory B with inverse entailment iff H subsumes E relative to B in Plotkin's sense. The theory B can be any clausal theory, and the example E can be any clause which is neither a tautology nor implied by B. The derived hypothesis H is a clause which is not always definite. In order to prove the result we give a declarative semantics for arbitrary consistent clausal theories, and show that SB-resolution, which was originally introduced by Plotkin, is a complete procedural semantics. The completeness is shown as an extension of the completeness theorem of SLD-resolution. We also show that every hypothesis H derived with saturant generalization, proposed by Rouveirol, must subsume E w.r.t. B in Buntine's sense. Moreover we show that saturant generalization can be obtained from inverse entailment by giving some restriction to it.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.H. Arimura. Learning Acyclic First-order Horn Sentences From Implication. To appear in the Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Algorithmic Learning Theory, 1997.Google Scholar
- 2.W. Buntine. Generalized Subsumption and Its Applications to Induction and Redundancy. Artificial Intelligence, 36:149–176, 1988.Google Scholar
- 3.W. W. Cohen. Pac-learning Recursive Logic Programs: Efficient Algorithms. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2:501–539, 1995.Google Scholar
- 4.W. W. Cohen. Pac-learning Recursive Logic Programs: Negative Results. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2:541–573, 1995.Google Scholar
- 5.K. Furukawa, T. Murakami, K. Ueno, T. Ozaki, and K. Shimazu. On a Sufficient Condition for the Exisitence of Most Specific Hypothesis in Progol. SIG-FAI-9603, 56–61, Resarch Reprot of JSAI, 1997.Google Scholar
- 6.K. Inoue. Linear Resolution for Consequence Finding. Artificial Intelligence, 56:301–353, 1992.Google Scholar
- 7.R. A. Kowalski. The Case for Using Equality Axioms in Automatic Demonstration. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Automatic Demonstaration (Lecture Notes in Mathematics 125), pages 112–127. Springer-Verlag, 1970. 8. J. W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming: Second, Extended Edition. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
- 9.S. Muggleton. Inverse Entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, 13:245–286, 1995.Google Scholar
- 10.S.-H. Nienhuys-Cheng and Ronald de Wolf. The Subsumption Theorem in Inductive Logic Programming: Facts and Fallacies. In L. de Raedt, editor, Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming, pages 147–160, 1994.Google Scholar
- 11.G. D. Plotkin. Automatic Methods of Inductive Inference. PhD thesis, Edinburgh University, 1971.Google Scholar
- 12.C. Rouveirol. Completeness for Inductive Procedures. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Machine Learning, pages 452–456. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
- 13.C. Rouveirol. Extentions of Inversion of Resolution Applied to Theory Completion. In S. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, pages 63–92. Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- 14.A. Yamamoto. Improving Theories for Inductive Logic Programming Systems with Ground Reduced Programs. Submitted to New Generation Computing, 1996.Google Scholar
- 15.A. Yamamoto. Representing Inductive Inference with SOLD-Resolution. To appear in the Proceedings of the IJCAI'97 Workshop on Abduction and Induction in AI, 1997.Google Scholar