Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content

The communication of inductive inferences

  • Learning, Communication and Understanding
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Distributed Artificial Intelligence Meets Machine Learning Learning in Multi-Agent Environments (LDAIS 1996, LIOME 1996)

Abstract

We propose a new approach to communication between agents that perform inductive inference. Consider a community of agents where each agent has a limited view of the overall world. When an agent in this community induces a hypothesis about the world, it necessarily reflects that agent's partial view of the world. If an agent communicates a hypothesis to another agent, and that hypothesis is in conflict with the receiving agent's view of the world, then the receiving agent has to modify or discard the hypothesis.

Previous systems have used voting methods or theory refinement techniques to integrate these partial hypotheses. However, these mechanisms risk destroying parts of the hypothesis that are correct. Our proposal is that an agent should communicate the bounds of an induced hypothesis, along with the hypothesis itself. These bounds allow the hypotheses to be judged in the context from which they were formed.

This paper examines using version space boundary sets to represent these bounds. Version space boundary sets may be manipulated using set operations. These operations can be used to evaluate and integrate multiple partial hypotheses. We describe a simple implementation of this approach, and draw some conclusions on its practicality. Finally, we describe a tentative set of KQML operators for communicating hypotheses and their bounds.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Bibliography

  • P. Brazdil, M. Gams, S. Sian, L. Torgo, and W. Van de Velde (1991). Learning in Distributed Systems and Multi-Agent Environments, In Proceedings of the European Working Session on Learning (EWSL91), Springer-Verlag, pages 424–439, Porto, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  • P. Brazdil and L. Torgo (1990). Knowledge Acquisition via Knowledge Integration, in Current Trends in AI, B. Wielenga et al.(eds.), IOS Press, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Cesa-Bianchi, Y. Freund, D. P. Helmbold, D. Haussler, R. E. Schapire, and M. K. Warmuth (1995). How to Use Expert Advice, Technical Report UCSC-CRL-95-19, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • P. K. Chan and S. J. Stolfo (1995). A Comparative Evaluation of Voting and Meta-Learning on Partitioned Data, In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Machine Learning (ML95), Morgan-Kaufmann, pages 90–98, Lake Tahoe, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • W. Davies (1993). ANIMALS, An Integrated Multi-Agent Learning System, M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Computing Science, University of Aberdeen, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Des Jardins and Diana F. Gordon (1995). Evaluation and Selection of Biases in Machine Learning, Machine Learning, 20:1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Finin, J. Weber, G. Wiederhold, M. Geneserth, R. Fritzson, D. MacKay, J. McGuire, R. Pelavin, S. Shapiro, and C. Beck (1993). Draft Specification of the KQML Agent-Communication Language, Unpublished Draft.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. W. Floyd and R. Beigel (1994). The Language of Machines, Computer Science Press, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Gams (1989). New Measurements Highlight the Importance of Redundant Knowledge, In Proceedings of the 4th European Working Session on Learning (EWSL89), Pitman-Morgan Kaufmann, pages 71–80, Montpellier, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Genesereth (1995). Epilog for Lisp 2.0 Manual. Epistemics Inc., Palo Alto, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Hirsh (1989). Incremental Version Space Merging: A General Framework for Concept Learning, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Jain and A. Sharma (1993). Computational Limits on Team Identification of Languages, Technical Report 9301, School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Kearns and H. S. Seung (1995). Learning from a Population of Hypotheses, Machine Learning, 18:255–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Lavrac and S. Dzeroski (1994). Inductive Logic Programming: Techniques and Applications, Ellis Horwood, Herts, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. S. Michalski (1993). Inferential Theory of Learning as a Conceptual Basis for Multistrategy Learning, Machine Learning, 11:111–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. M. Mitchell (1978). Version spaces: An Approach to Concept Learning, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • T. M. Mitchell, R. M. Keller, and S. T. Kedar-Cabell (1986). Explanation-Based Generalization: A Unifying View, Machine Learning, 1:1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • R. J. Mooney and D. Ourston (1991). A Multistrategy Approach to Theory Refinement, In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Multistrategy Learning, pages 115–130, Harper's Ferry, WV.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Muggleton (1992). Inductive Logic Programming, Academic Press, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. H. Nienhuys-Cheng and R. De Wolf (1996). Least Generalizations and Greatest Specializations of Sets of Clauses, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4:341–363

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Pazzani and D. Kibler (1992). The Utility of Knowledge in Inductive Learning, Machine Learning, 9: 57–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • F. J. Provost and D. N. Hennessy (1995). Distributed Machine Learning: Scaling up with Coarse Grained Parallelism, In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB94), AAAI Press, pages 340–348, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • J. R. Quinlan (1986). Induction of Decision Trees, Machine Learning, 1:81–106

    Google Scholar 

  • J. R. Quinlan (1990). Learning Logical Definitions from Relations, Machine Learning, 5:239–266

    Google Scholar 

  • J. R. Quinlan (1994). The Minimum Description Length Principle and Categorical Theories, In Machine Learning, Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop (ML94), Morgan Kaufmann, pages 233–241, New Brunswick, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • S. S. Sian (1991). Learning in Distributed Artificial Intelligence Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Silver, W. Frawley, G. Iba, J. Vittal, and K. Bradford (1990). ILS: A Framework for Multi-Paradigmatic Learning, In Machine Learning, Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop (ML90), Morgan Kaufmann, pages 348–356, Austin, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • B. D. Smith (1995). Induction as Knowledge Integration, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California.

    Google Scholar 

  • V. Svatek (1994). Integration of Rules from Expert and Rules Discovered in Data, Unpublished Draft, Prague University of Economics, Czech Republic.

    Google Scholar 

  • P. E. Utgoff (1989). Incremental Induction of Decision Trees, Machine Learning, 4:161–186.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Gerhard Weiß

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Davies, W., Edwards, P. (1997). The communication of inductive inferences. In: Weiß, G. (eds) Distributed Artificial Intelligence Meets Machine Learning Learning in Multi-Agent Environments. LDAIS LIOME 1996 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1221. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-62934-3_51

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-62934-3_51

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-62934-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69050-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics