TL;DR: This paper addresses methods of specialising rst-order theories within the context of incremental learning systems and proposes the adoption of a specialisation scheme based on an existing non-monotonic logic formalism which overcomes the problems that arise with incrementallearning systems which employ classical logic.
Abstract: This paper addresses methods of specialising rst-order theories within the context of incremental learning systems. We demonstrate the shortcomings of existing rst-order incremental learning systems with regard to their specialisation mechanisms. We prove that these shortcomings are fundamental to the use of classical logic. In particular, minimal \\correct-ing\" specialisations are not always obtainable within this framework. We propose instead the adoption of a specialisation scheme based on an existing non-monotonic logic formalism. This approach overcomes the problems that arise with incremental learning systems which employ classical logic. As a side-eeect of the formal proofs developed for this paper we deene a function called \\deriv\" which turns out to be an improvement on an existing explanation-based-generalisation (EBG) algorithm. Prolog code and a description of the relationship between \\deriv\" and the previous EBG algorithm are described in an appendix.
TL;DR: The authors identify and discuss a generic induction approach called interactive induction, which offers an alternative method for eliciting subjective information from an expert during the course of knowledge acquisition by involving the expert in the provision of additional subjective knowledge and in the incremental evaluation and validation of knowledge induced.
Abstract: The authors identify and discuss a generic induction approach called interactive induction, which offers an alternative method for eliciting subjective information from an expert during the course of knowledge acquisition. The approach extends pure induction by involving the expert in the provision of additional subjective knowledge and in the incremental evaluation and validation of knowledge induced. It is still able, in principle, to induce knowledge beyond that articulated or known by the expert. Moreover, unlike earlier induction methods, interaction does play a key role; induction is not viewed as an automatic process. Consideration is given to the various aspects of the knowledge engineering problem that are relevant to the interactive induction approach and software features that are needed to support it. Relevant theory is discussed along with lines for future research. >
TL;DR: A number of issues involved in finding and repairing faults in a world model are discussed and some preliminary results obtained from a learning program called CAP are described.
Abstract: We consider the task of a robot learning in a reactive environment by performing experiments. A reactive environment is one where changes occur in response to actions. Actors other than the learner may be present in the world. The robot performs experiments by modifying the environment and observing the outcome. These observations lead to a collection of concepts that constitute a theory of the behaviour of the environment, also called a world model. An experiment may either increase confidence in a theory or refute a theory, but it can never prove a theory. Therefore, it is possible that the robot will develop an inaccurate model of its world. This paper discusses a number of issues involved in finding and repairing faults in a world model. It also describes some preliminary results obtained from a learning program called CAP.