Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining

2017 Edition
| Editors: Claude Sammut, Geoffrey I. Webb


  • Antonis C. KakasEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7687-1_1


Abduction is a form of reasoning, sometimes described as “deduction in reverse,” whereby given a rule that “A follows from B” and the observed result of “A” we infer the condition “B” of the rule. More generally, given a theory, T, modeling a domain of interest and an observation, “A, ” we infer a hypothesis “B” such that the observation follows deductively from T augmented with “B. ” We think of “B” as a possible explanation for the observation according to the given theory that contains our rule. This new information and its consequences (or ramifications) according to the given theory can be considered as the result of a (or part of a) learning process based on the given theory and driven by the observations that are explained by abduction. Abduction can be combined with  induction in different ways to enhance this learning process.

Motivation and Background

Abduction is, along with induction, a syntheticform of reasoning whereby it generates, in its explanations, new...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. Ade H, Denecker M (1995) AILP: abductive inductive logic programming. In: Mellish CS (ed) IJCAI. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 1201–1209Google Scholar
  2. Ade H, Malfait B, Raedt LD (1994) Ruth: an ILP theory revision system. In: ISMIS94. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Alrajeh D, Ray O, Russo A, Uchitel S (2009) Using abduction and induction for operational requirements elaboration. J Appl Logic 7(3):275–288MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergadano F, Cutello V, Gunetti D (2000) Abduction in machine learning. In: Gabbay D, Kruse R (eds) Handbook of defeasible reasoning and uncertainty management systems, vol 4. Kluver Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp 197–229Google Scholar
  5. del Cerro LF, Inoue K (eds) (2014) Logical modeling of biological systems. Wiley/ISTE, Hoboken/LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. DeJong G, Mooney R (1986) Explanation-based learning: an alternate view. Mach Learn 1:145–176Google Scholar
  7. Doncescu A, Inoue K, Yamamoto Y (2007) Knowledge based discovery in systems biology using cf-induction. In: Okuno HG, Ali M (eds) IEA/AIE. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 395–404Google Scholar
  8. Flach P, Kakas A (2000) Abductive and inductive reasoning: background and issues. In: Flach PA, Kakas AC (eds) Abductive and inductive reasoning. Pure and applied logic. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  9. Flach PA, Kakas AC (eds) (2009) Abduction and induction in artificial intelligence [special issue]. J Appl Logic 7(3):251Google Scholar
  10. Inoue K (2001) Inverse entailment for full clausal theories. In: LICS-2001 workshop on logic and learningGoogle Scholar
  11. Ito K, Yamamoto A (1998) Finding hypotheses from examples by computing the least generlisation of bottom clauses. In: Proceedings of discovery science’98. Springer, Berlin, pp 303–314Google Scholar
  12. Josephson J, Josephson S (eds) (1994) Abductive inference: computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge University Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Kakas A, Kowalski R, Toni F (1992) Abductive logic programming. J Logic Comput 2(6):719–770MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kakas A, Riguzzi F (2000) Abductive concept learning. New Gener Comput 18:243–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King R, Whelan K, Jones F, Reiser P, Bryant C, Muggleton S et al (2004) Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist. Nature 427:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leake D (1995) Abduction, experience and goals: a model for everyday abductive explanation. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 7:407–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Michalski RS (1993) Inferential theory of learning as a conceptual basis for multistrategy learning. Mach Learn 11:111–151Google Scholar
  18. Moyle S (2002) Using theory completion to learn a robot navigation control program. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on inductive logic programming. Springer, Berlin, pp 182–197Google Scholar
  19. Moyle SA (2000) An investigation into theory completion techniques in inductive logic programming. PhD thesis, Oxford University Computing Laboratory, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Muggleton S (1995) Inverse entailment and Progol. New Gener Comput 13:245–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muggleton S, Bryant C (2000) Theory completion using inverse entailment. In: Proceedings of the tenth international workshop on inductive logic programming (ILP-00). Springer, Berlin, pp 130–146Google Scholar
  22. Ourston D, Mooney RJ (1994) Theory refinement combining analytical and empirical methods. Artif Intell 66:311–344MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Papatheodorou I, Kakas A, Sergot M (2005) Inference of gene relations from microarray data by abduction. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning (LPNMR’05), vol 3662. Springer, Berlin, pp389–393Google Scholar
  24. Ray O (2009) Nonmonotonic abductive inductive learning. J Appl Logic 7(3):329–340MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ray O, Antoniades A, Kakas A, Demetriades I (2006) Abductive logic programming in the clinical management of HIV/AIDS. In: Brewka G, Coradeschi S, Perini A, Traverso P (eds) Proceedings of the 17th European conference on artificial intelligence. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol 141. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 437–441Google Scholar
  26. Ray O, Broda K, Russo A (2003) Hybrid abductive inductive learning: a generalisation of Progol. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on inductive logic programming. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 2835. Springer, Berlin, pp 311–328Google Scholar
  27. Ray O, Bryant C (2008) Inferring the function of genes from synthetic lethal mutations. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on complex, intelligent and software intensive systems. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 667–671Google Scholar
  28. Ray O, Flach PA, Kakas AC (eds) (2009) Abduction and induction in artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2009 workshopGoogle Scholar
  29. Reggia J (1983) Diagnostic experts systems based on a set-covering model. Int J Man-Mach Stud 19(5):437–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tamaddoni-Nezhad A, Chaleil R, Kakas A, Muggleton S (2006) Application of abductive ILP to learning metabolic network inhibition from temporal data. Mach Learn 64(1–3):209–230zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tamaddoni-Nezhad A, Kakas A, Muggleton S, Pazos F (2004) Modelling inhibition in metabolic pathways through abduction and induction. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on inductive logic programming. Springer, Berlin, pp 305–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yamamoto A (1997) Which hypotheses can be found with inverse entailment? In: Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on inductive logic programming. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 1297. Springer, Berlin, pp 296–308Google Scholar
  33. Zupan B, Bratko I, Demsar J, Juvan P, Halter J, Kuspa A et al (2003) Genepath: a system for automated construction of genetic networks from mutant data. Bioinformatics 19(3):383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CyprusNicosiaCyprus