1998
DOI: 10.1007/bfb0027329
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distances and limits on Herbrand interpretations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, the need for mechanisms to assess a degree of similarity among logic descriptions. Previous works on similarity/distance measures and techniques developed for comparing firstorder descriptions are concerned with flexible matching (Esposito, 1992), supervised learning (Bisson, 1992a;Emde, 1996;Domingos, 1995;Sebag, 1997;NienhuysCheng, 1998;Ramon, 2002;Kodratoff, 1986) and unsupervised learning (Thompson, 1989;Ramon, 1999;Bisson, 1992b;Blockeel, 1998). The similarity framework for FOL descriptions presented in the following overcomes some problems that are present in those works: it does not require assumptions and simplifying hypotheses (statistical independence, mutual exclusion) to ease the probability handling, no prior knowledge of the representation language is required and is not based on the presence of 'mandatory' relations, the user must not set weights on the predicates' importance, it can be easily extended to handle negative information, it avoids the propagation of similarity between subcomponents that poses the problem of indeterminacy in associations, it yields a unique value as a result of a comparison, which is more understandable and comfortable for handling, it is based directly on the structure, and not on derived features.…”
Section: Similarity Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence, the need for mechanisms to assess a degree of similarity among logic descriptions. Previous works on similarity/distance measures and techniques developed for comparing firstorder descriptions are concerned with flexible matching (Esposito, 1992), supervised learning (Bisson, 1992a;Emde, 1996;Domingos, 1995;Sebag, 1997;NienhuysCheng, 1998;Ramon, 2002;Kodratoff, 1986) and unsupervised learning (Thompson, 1989;Ramon, 1999;Bisson, 1992b;Blockeel, 1998). The similarity framework for FOL descriptions presented in the following overcomes some problems that are present in those works: it does not require assumptions and simplifying hypotheses (statistical independence, mutual exclusion) to ease the probability handling, no prior knowledge of the representation language is required and is not based on the presence of 'mandatory' relations, the user must not set weights on the predicates' importance, it can be easily extended to handle negative information, it avoids the propagation of similarity between subcomponents that poses the problem of indeterminacy in associations, it yields a unique value as a result of a comparison, which is more understandable and comfortable for handling, it is based directly on the structure, and not on derived features.…”
Section: Similarity Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[13] organizes terms in an importance-related hierarchy, and proposes a distance between terms based on interpretations and a level mapping function that maps every simple expression on a natural number. [15] presents a distance function between atoms based on the difference with their lgg, and uses it to compute distances between clauses.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…k clauses are choosen and the truth values of whether each clause covers the example or not are used as k features for a distance on the space {0, 1} k between the examples. [6] organizes terms in an importance-related hierarchy, and proposes a distance between terms based on interpretations and a level mapping function that maps every simple expression on a natural number. [7] presents a distance function between atoms based on the difference with their lgg, and uses it to compute distances between clauses.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[7] presents a distance function between atoms based on the difference with their lgg, and uses it to compute distances between clauses. It consists of a pair: the first component extends the distance in [6] and is based on the differences between the functors on both terms, while the second component is based on the differences in occurrences of variables and allows to differentiate cases where the first component cannot. …”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%