Generalized subsumption and its applications to induction and redundancy
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Golem generalises pairs of examples based on relative least-general generalisation (RLGG).
“For instance, Golem (Muggleton & Feng, 1990) generalises pairs of examples based on relative least-general generalisation (RLGG) (Buntine, 1988).”
From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Buntine, 1988
Buntine's notion of relative least-general generalisation computes a LGG of two examples relative to the BK (assumed to be a set of facts).
“Buntine's (1988) notion of relative least-general generalisation computes a LGG of two examples relative to the BK (assumed to be a set of facts):”
From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Buntine, 1988
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 168
- Authors
- Buntine, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Buntine, Wray
- ORCID
- Buntine, Wray
- Venue
- Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1988-09
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 149-176
- ISSN
- 0004-3702 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2077422877
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 10.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
- Keywords
- definite clauses, redundancy control, knowledge acquisition, knowledge change, inductive learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
