Analytical negative generalization and empirical negative generalization are not cumulative: A case study

  • C. Carpineto
Part 1: Constructive Induction And Multi-Strategy Approaches
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 482)


This paper addresses the problem of using explanation-based generalizations of negative inputs in Mitchell's candidate elimination algorithm and in other more recent approaches to version spaces. It points out that a mere combination would produce a worse result than that obtainable without input preprocessing, whereas this problem was not perceived in previous work. Costs and benefits of the extra computation required to take advantage of prior EBL phase are analysed for a conjunctive concept languages defined on a tree-structured attribute-based instance space. Furthermore, this result seems to be independent of the particular inductive learning algorithm considered (i.e., version spaces), thus helping clarify one aspect of the ill-understood relation between analytical generalization and empirical generalization.


Inductive generalization analytical generalization version spaces 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Carp90]
    Carpineto, C. (1990). Combining EBL from success and EBL from failure with parameter version spaces. 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  2. [Char86]
    Charniak, E., McDermott, D. (1986). Introduction to Artificial Intelligence. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  3. [Ellm89]
    Ellman, T. (1989). Explanation-Based Learning: A Survey of Programs and Perspectives. ACM Computing Surveys, 21(2), 163–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Hirs89]
    Hirsh, H. (1989). Combining Empirical and Analytical Learning with Version Spaces. 6th International Workshop on Machine Learning. Syracuse, New York.Google Scholar
  5. [Hirs90]
    Hirsh, H. (1990). Incremental Version-Space Merging 7th International Conference on Machine Learning. Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  6. [Mich83]
    Michalski, R.S. (1983). A theory and methodology of inductive learning. Artificial Intelligence, 20, 111–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Mint87]
    Minton, S., Carbonell, J. G. (1987). Strategies for Learning Search Control Rules:An Explanation-based Approach. 10th IJCAI, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  8. [Mitc78]
    Mitchell, T. M. (1978). Version Spaces: An Approach to Concept learning. PhDthesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  9. [Mitc82a]
    Mitchell, T.M. (1982). Generalization as Search. Artificial Intelligence, 18, 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Mitc82b]
    Mitchell, T.M., Utgoff, P. E., Banerji, R.B. (1982). Learning problem-solving heuristics by experimentation. In R.S. Michalski et al. (Eds), Machine Learning. Tioga Press, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
  11. [Utgo86]
    Utgoff, P.E. (1986). Shift of Bias for Inductive Concept Learning. In R.S. Michalski et al. (Eds), Machine Learning.Vol.II Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, California.Google Scholar
  12. [VanL89]
    VanLehn, K. (1989). Efficient Specialization of Relational Concepts. Machine Learning 4 (1), 99–106.Google Scholar
  13. [Wins75]
    Winston, P. H. (1975). Learning structural descriptions from examples. In P.H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Carpineto
    • 1
  1. 1.Fondazione "Ugo Bordoni"RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations