CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Induction as Consequence Finding

Open access
Inoue, Katsumi·2004·Machine Learning
DOI 10.1023/b:mach.0000023149.72125.e2
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/b:mach.0000023149.72125.e2

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Some ILP systems induce full (unrestricted) clausal theories, such as Claudien and CF-induction.

    “Some systems induce full (unrestricted) clausal theories, such as Claudien (De Raedt & Dehaspe, 1997) and CF-induction (Inoue, 2004).”

    From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Inoue, 2004

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 38 · Cited by 64

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Bibel, W. (1998). Deduction: Automated logic. Academic Press.
  2. Cox, P. T., & Pietrzykowski, T. (1986). Causes for events: their computation and applications. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Automated Deduction (pp. 608-621). LNCS 230, Springer.
  3. del Val, A. (1999). A new method for consequence finding and compilation in restricted languages. In Proceedings of AAAI-99 (pp. 259-264). AAAI Press.
  4. Dimopoulos, Y., & Kakas, A. (1996). Abduction and inductive learning. In L. De Raedt (Ed.), Advances in inductive logic programming. IOS Press.
  5. Flach, P. A., & Kakas, A. C. (Eds.). (2000). Abduction and induction: Essays on their relation and integration. Kluwer.
  6. Furukawa, K., Murakami, T., Ueno, K., Ozaki, T., & K. Shimazu. (1997). On a sufficient condition for the existence of most specific hypothesis in Progol. In N. Lavrač, & S. Džeroski (Eds.), Proceed- ings of the Seventh International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (pp. 157-164). LNAI 1297, Springer.
  7. Furukawa, K. (1998). On the completion of the most specific hypothesis computation in inverse entailment for mutual recursion. In Proceedings of Discovery Science '98 (pp. 315-325). LNAI 1532, Springer.
  8. Grégoire, É., & Saïs, L. (1996). Inductive reasoning is sometimes deductive. In Proceedings of ECAI-96 Workshop on Abductive and Inductive Reasoning.
  9. Helft, N. (1989). Induction as nonmonotonic inference. In R.J. Brachman, H.J. Levesque, & R. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (pp. 149-156).
  10. Morgan Kaufmann.
  11. Helft, N., Inoue, K., & Poole, D. (1991). Query answering in circumscription. In Proceedings of IJCAI-91 (pp. 426-431).
  12. Morgan Kaufmann.
  13. Inoue, K. (2001). Induction, abduction, and consequence-finding. In C. Rouveirol, & M. Sebag (Eds.), Pro- ceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (pp. 65-79). LNAI 2157, Springer.
  14. Inoue, K. (2002). Automated abduction. In A. Kakas, & F. Sadri (Eds.), Computational Logic: From Logic Programming into the Future-In Honour of Bob Kowalski (Part II). LNAI 2408, Springer.
  15. Inoue, K., & C. Sakama. (2002). Disjunctive explanations. In P. Stuckey (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Logic Programming (pp. 317-332), LNCS 2401, Springer.
  16. Iwanuma, K., Inoue, K., & Satoh, K. (2000). Completeness of pruning methods for consequence finding procedure SOL. In P. Baumgartner, & H. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on First-Order Theorem Proving (pp. 89-100).
  17. Lachiche, N. (2000). Abduction and induction from a non-monotonic reasoning perspective. In P.A. Flach, & A.C. Kakas (Eds.), Abduction and induction: Essays on their relation and integration. Kluwer.
  18. Lee, C. T. (1967). A completeness theorem and computer program for finding theorems derivable from given axioms. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
  19. Marquis, P. (2000). Consequence finding algorithms. In D. M. Gabbay & P. Smets (Eds.), Handbook for defeasible reasoning and uncertain management systems (vol. 5). Kluwer Academic.
  20. Muggleton, S. (1998). Completing inverse entailment. In D. Page (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (pp. 245-249). LNAI 1446, Springer.
  21. Muggleton, S., & Bryant, C. (2000). Theory completion and inverse entailment. In J. Cussens, & A. Frisch (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (pp. 130-146). LNAI 1866, Springer.
  22. Muggleton, S., & Buntine, W. (1988). Machine invention of first-order predicates by inverting resolution. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 339-352).
  23. Morgan Kaufmann.
  24. Nienhuys-Cheng, S. H., & de Wolf, R. (1997). Foundations of inductive logic programming. LNAI 1228, Springer.
  25. Otsuji, K. (2002). Research on implementation of CF-induction using SOL resolution. Graduation Thesis, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Kobe University.
  26. Peirce, C. S. (1932). Elements of logic. In C. Hartshorne, & P. Weiss (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (vol. II). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  27. Pettorossi, A., & Proietti, M. (1994). Transformation of logic programs: foundations and techniques. Journal of Logic Programming, 19 & 20, 261-320.
  28. Plotkin, G. D. (1971). A further note on inductive generalization. In B. Meltzer, & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence (vol. 6). Edinburgh University Press.
  29. Stickel, M. E. (1988). A Prolog technology theorem prover: implementation by an extended Prolog compiler. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 4, 353-380.
  30. Yamamoto, A. (1997). Which hypotheses can be found with inverse entailment? In N. Lavrač, & S. Džeroski (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (pp. 296-308). LNAI 1297, Springer.
  31. Yamamoto, A., & Fronhöfer, B. (2000). Hypotheses finding via residue hypotheses with the resolution principle. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (pp. 156-165). LNAI 1968, Springer.

Authors
Inoue, K.
Affiliations
National Institute of Informatics (JP)
Corresponding author
Inoue, Katsumi
ORCID
Inoue, Katsumi
Venue
Machine Learning
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2004-05
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
109-135
ISSN
  • 0885-6125 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0565
DOI
10.1023/b:mach.0000023149.72125.e2
OpenAlex
W2031895221
Cited by
64
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Machine Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
inductive logic programming, resolution, integrity constraints, abductive explanations, abduction, soundness and completeness

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