Skip to main content

Inducing Causal Laws by Regular Inference

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3625))

Abstract

Recent work on representing action and change has introduced high-level action languages which describe the effects of actions as causal laws in a declarative way. In this paper, we propose an algorithm to induce the effects of actions from an incomplete domain description and observations after executing action sequences, all of which are represented in the action language \(\mathcal{A}\). Our induction algorithm generates effect propositions in \(\mathcal{A}\) based on regular inference, i.e., an algorithm to learn finite automata. As opposed to previous work on learning automata from scratch, we are concerned with explanatory induction which accounts for observations from background knowledge together with induced hypotheses. Compared with previous approaches in ILP, an observation input to our induction algorithm is not restricted to a narrative but can be any fact observed after executing a sequence of actions. As a result, induction of causal laws can be formally characterized within action languages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angluin, D.: Inference of reversible languages. J. ACM 29(3), 741–765 (1982)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Baral, C., Gelfond, M., Provetti, A.: Representing actions: laws, observations and hypotheses. J. Logic Programming 31, 201–243 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Dupont, P., Miclet, L., Vidal, E.: What is the search space of the regular inference? In: Carrasco, R.C., Oncina, J. (eds.) ICGI 1994. LNCS, vol. 862, pp. 26–37. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dupont, P.: Regular grammatical inference from positive and negative samples by genetic search: the GIG method. In: Carrasco, R.C., Oncina, J. (eds.) ICGI 1994. LNCS, vol. 862, pp. 236–245. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Representing action and change by logic programs. J. Logic Programming 17(2–4), 301–321 (1993)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electronic Transactions of AI 3, 195–210 (1998)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Giunchiglia, E., Lifschitz, V.: An action language based on causal explanation: preliminary report. In: Proc. AAAI 1998, pp. 623–630. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, T.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153, 49–104 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Lorenzo, D.: Learning non-monotonic causal theories. In: Proc. 9th International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, pp. 349–355 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lorenzo, D., Otero, R.P.: Learning to reason about actions. In: Proc. 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IOS press, Amsterdam (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Moyle, S.: Using theory completion to learn a robot navigation control programs. In: Matwin, S., Sammut, C. (eds.) ILP 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2583, pp. 182–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Moyle, S., Muggleton, S.: Learning programs in the event calculus. In: Džeroski, S., Lavrač, N. (eds.) ILP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1297, pp. 205–212. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Muggleton, S., Bryant, C.: Theory completion and inverse entailment. In: Cussens, J., Frisch, A.M. (eds.) ILP 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1866, pp. 130–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Nabeshima, H., Inoue, K.: Automata theory for action language \({\cal A}\). Trans. Information Processing Society of Japan 38(3), 462–471 (1997) (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Otero, R.P.: Induction of the effects of actions by monotonic methods. In: Horváth, T., Yamamoto, A. (eds.) ILP 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2835, pp. 299–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Otero, R.P.: Embracing causality in inducing the effects of actions. In: Conejo, R., Urretavizcaya, M., Pérez-de-la-Cruz, J.-L. (eds.) CAEPIA/TTIA 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3040, pp. 291–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Watanabe, H., Muggleton, S.: First-order stochastic action language. Electronic Transactions in Artificial Intelligence 7 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Inoue, K., Bando, H., Nabeshima, H. (2005). Inducing Causal Laws by Regular Inference. In: Kramer, S., Pfahringer, B. (eds) Inductive Logic Programming. ILP 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3625. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11536314_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11536314_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-28177-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31851-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics