Extending explanation-based generalization by abstraction operators

  • Igor Mozetič
  • Christian Holzbaur
Part 4: Theorem Proving And EBL
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 482)


We present two contributions to the explanation-based generalization techniques. First, the operationality criterion is extended by abstraction operators. These allow for the goal concept to be reformulated not only in terms of operational predicates, but also allow to delete irrelevant arguments, and to collapse indistinguishable constants. The abstraction algorithm is presented and illustrated by an example. Second, the domain theory is not restricted to variables with finite (discrete) domains, but can deal with infinite (e.g., real-valued) domains as well. The interpretation and abstraction are effectively handled through constraint logic programming mechanisms. In the paper we concentrate on the role of CLP(ℜ) — a solver for systems of linear equations and inequalities over reals.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Gallanti, M., Roncato, M., Stefanini, A., Tornielli, G. (1989). A diagnostic algorithm based on models at different level of abstraction. Proc. 11th IJCAI, pp. 1350–1355, Detroit, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  2. Giunchiglia, F., Walsh, T. (1989). Abstract theorem proving. Proc. 11th IJCAI, pp. 372–377, Detroit, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  3. Giunchiglia, F., Walsh, T. (1990). Abstract theorem proving: mapping back. IRST Technical Report 8911-16, Istituto Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica, Trento, Italy.Google Scholar
  4. Heintze, N., Jaffar, J., Michaylov, S., Stuckey, P., Yap, R. (1987). The CLP(ℜ) programmer's manual. Dept. of Computer Science, Monash University, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Heintze, N., Michaylov, S., Stuckey, P. (1987). CLP(ℜ) and some electrical engineering problems. Proc. 4th Intl. Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 675–703, Melbourne, Australia, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Holzbaur, C. (1990). Specification of constraint based inference mechanisms through extended unification. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  7. Jaffar, J. (1990). CLP(ℜ) version 1.0 reference manual. IBM Research Division, T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY.Google Scholar
  8. Jaffar, J., Michaylov, S. (1987). Methodology and implementation of a CLP system. Proc. 4th Intl. Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 196–218, Melbourne, Australia, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Korf, R.E. (1987). Planning as search: a quantitative approach. Artificial Intelligence 33, pp. 65–88.Google Scholar
  10. Kraemer, F.-J. (1989). A decision procedure for Presburger arithmetic with functions and equality. SEKI working paper SWP-89-4, FB Informatik, University of Kaiserslautern, Germany.Google Scholar
  11. Lloyd, J.W. (1987). Foundations of Logic Programming (Second edition). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  12. Mitchell, T., Keller, R., Kedar-Cabelli, S. (1986). Explanation-based generalization: A unifying view. Machine Learning 1 (1), pp. 47–80.Google Scholar
  13. Mozetic, I. (1990a). Abstractions in model-based diagnosis. Report TR-90-4, Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Vienna, Austria. Proc. Automatic Generation of Approximations and Abstractions, AAAI-90 Workshop, pp. 64–75, Boston.Google Scholar
  14. Mozetic, I. (1990b). Reduction of diagnostic complexity through model abstractions. Report TR-90-10, Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Vienna, Austria. Proc. First Intl. Workshop on Principles of Diagnosis, pp. 102–111, Stanford University, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  15. Mozetic, I., Holzbaur, C. (1991). Integrating qualitative and numerical models within Constraint Logic Programming. Report TR-91-2, Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Vienna, Austria. Workshop on Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems, Genova, Italy.Google Scholar
  16. Plaisted, D.A. (1981). Theorem proving with abstractions. Artificial Intelligence 16, pp. 47–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sacerdoti, E.D. (1974). Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction spaces. Artificial Intelligence 5, pp. 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shostak, R. (1981). Deciding linear inequalities by computing loop residues. Journal of the ACM 28 (4), pp. 769–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van Harmelen, F., Bundy, A. (1988). Explanation-based generalisation = partial evaluation. Artificial Intelligence 36, pp. 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor Mozetič
    • 1
  • Christian Holzbaur
    • 2
  1. 1.Austrian Research Institute for Artificial IntelligenceViennaAustria
  2. 2.Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, and Department of Medical Cybernetics and Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations