General-Specific Ordering
A General-Specific Ordering is a distance metric based on generalization and Specialization measures.
- See: Distance Metric, Similarity Metric, Size Metric, Triangle Inequality, Diamond Inequality, Ranking, Classification, Hierarchical Complexity, Hierarchical Data Structure, Taxonomic Rank, Generality Ordering, Least General Generalization, Least Special Specialization.
References
2018a
- (Wikipedia, 2018) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-unification_(computer_science)#Generalization,_specialization Retrieved:2018-4-8.
- If a term [math]\displaystyle{ t }[/math] has an instance equivalent to a term [math]\displaystyle{ u }[/math], that is, if [math]\displaystyle{ t \sigma \equiv u }[/math] for some substitution [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma }[/math], then [math]\displaystyle{ t }[/math] is called more general than [math]\displaystyle{ u }[/math] , and [math]\displaystyle{ u }[/math] is called more special than, or subsumed by, [math]\displaystyle{ t }[/math] . For example, [math]\displaystyle{ x \oplus a }[/math] is more general than [math]\displaystyle{ a \oplus b }[/math] if [math]\displaystyle{ \oplus }[/math] is commutative, since then [math]\displaystyle{ (x \oplus a)\{x \mapsto b\} = b \oplus a \equiv a \oplus b }[/math] .
If [math]\displaystyle{ \equiv }[/math] is literal (syntactic) identity of terms, a term may be both more general and more special than another one only if both terms differ just in their variable names, not in their syntactic structure; such terms are called variants, or renamings of each other.
For example, [math]\displaystyle{ f(x_1,a,g(z_1),y_1) }[/math] is a variant of [math]\displaystyle{ f(x_2,a,g(z_2),y_2) }[/math] , since [math]\displaystyle{ f(x_1,a,g(z_1),y_1) \{ x_1 \mapsto x_2, y_1 \mapsto y_2, z_1 \mapsto z_2\} = f(x_2,a,g(z_2),y_2) }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ f(x_2,a,g(z_2),y_2) \{x_2 \mapsto x_1, y_2 \mapsto y_1, z_2 \mapsto z_1\} = f(x_1,a,g(z_1),y_1) }[/math] .
However, [math]\displaystyle{ f(x_1,a,g(z_1),y_1) }[/math] is not a variant of [math]\displaystyle{ f(x_2,a,g(x_2),x_2) }[/math] , since no substitution can transform the latter term into the former one, although [math]\displaystyle{ \{x_1 \mapsto x_2, z_1 \mapsto x_2, y_1 \mapsto x_2 \} }[/math] achieves the reverse direction.
The latter term is hence properly more special than the former one.
A substitution [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma }[/math] is more special than, or subsumed by, a substitution [math]\displaystyle{ \tau }[/math] if [math]\displaystyle{ x \sigma }[/math] is more special than [math]\displaystyle{ x \tau }[/math] for each variable [math]\displaystyle{ x }[/math] .
For example, [math]\displaystyle{ \{ x \mapsto f(u), y \mapsto f(f(u)) \} }[/math] is more special than [math]\displaystyle{ \{ x \mapsto z, y \mapsto f(z) \} }[/math] , since [math]\displaystyle{ f(u) }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ f(f(u)) }[/math] is more special than [math]\displaystyle{ z }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ f(z) }[/math] , respectively.
- If a term [math]\displaystyle{ t }[/math] has an instance equivalent to a term [math]\displaystyle{ u }[/math], that is, if [math]\displaystyle{ t \sigma \equiv u }[/math] for some substitution [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma }[/math], then [math]\displaystyle{ t }[/math] is called more general than [math]\displaystyle{ u }[/math] , and [math]\displaystyle{ u }[/math] is called more special than, or subsumed by, [math]\displaystyle{ t }[/math] . For example, [math]\displaystyle{ x \oplus a }[/math] is more general than [math]\displaystyle{ a \oplus b }[/math] if [math]\displaystyle{ \oplus }[/math] is commutative, since then [math]\displaystyle{ (x \oplus a)\{x \mapsto b\} = b \oplus a \equiv a \oplus b }[/math] .
2018b
- (Wikipedia, 2018) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-unification_(computer_science)#Anti-unification_problem Retrieved:2018-4-8.
- An anti-unification problem is a pair [math]\displaystyle{ \langle t_1, t_2 \rangle }[/math] of terms.
A term [math]\displaystyle{ t }[/math] is a common generalization, or anti-unifier, of [math]\displaystyle{ t_1 }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ t_2 }[/math] if [math]\displaystyle{ t \sigma_1 \equiv t_1 }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ t \sigma_2 \equiv t_2 }[/math] for some substitutions [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma_1, \sigma_2 }[/math] .
For a given anti-unification problem, a set [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] of anti-unifiers is called complete if each generalization subsumes some term [math]\displaystyle{ t \in S }[/math] ; the set [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] is called minimal if none of its members subsumes another one.
- An anti-unification problem is a pair [math]\displaystyle{ \langle t_1, t_2 \rangle }[/math] of terms.
2017a
- (Sammut, 2017) ⇒ Sammut, C. (2017) https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4899-7687-1_327 "Generalization". . In: Sammut, C., Webb, G.I. (eds) [Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining]. Springer, Boston, MA
- QUOTE: A hypothesis, h, is a predicate that maps an instance to true or false. That is, if [math]\displaystyle{ h(x) }[/math] is true, then [math]\displaystyle{ x }[/math] is hypothesized to belong to the concept being learned, the target. Hypothesis, [math]\displaystyle{ h_1 }[/math], is more general than or equal to [math]\displaystyle{ h_2 }[/math], if [math]\displaystyle{ h_1 }[/math] covers at least as many examples as [math]\displaystyle{ h_2 }[/math] (Mitchell, 1997 [1]). That is, [math]\displaystyle{ h_1 \geq h_2 }[/math] if and only if
[math]\displaystyle{ (\forall x)[h_1(x) \rightarrow h_2(x)] }[/math]
- QUOTE: A hypothesis, h, is a predicate that maps an instance to true or false. That is, if [math]\displaystyle{ h(x) }[/math] is true, then [math]\displaystyle{ x }[/math] is hypothesized to belong to the concept being learned, the target. Hypothesis, [math]\displaystyle{ h_1 }[/math], is more general than or equal to [math]\displaystyle{ h_2 }[/math], if [math]\displaystyle{ h_1 }[/math] covers at least as many examples as [math]\displaystyle{ h_2 }[/math] (Mitchell, 1997 [1]). That is, [math]\displaystyle{ h_1 \geq h_2 }[/math] if and only if
2017b
- (Sammut & Webb, 2017) ⇒ (2017) Specialization. In: Sammut, C., Webb, G.I. (eds) Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining. Springer, Boston, MA
- QUOTE: Specialization is the converse of generalization. Thus, if [math]\displaystyle{ h_1 }[/math] is a generalization of [math]\displaystyle{ h_2 }[/math] then [math]\displaystyle{ h_2 }[/math] is a specialization of [math]\displaystyle{ h_1 }[/math].
2017c
- (De Raedt, 2017) ⇒ De Raedt L. (2017) Logic of Generality. In: Sammut, C., Webb, G.I. (eds) Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining. Springer, Boston, MA
- QUOTE: One hypothesis is more general than another one if it covers all instances that are also covered by the latter one. The former hypothesis is called a generalization of the latter one, and the latter a specialization of the former. When using logical formulae as hypotheses, the generality relation coincides with the notion of logical entailment, which implies that the generality relation can be analyzed from a logical perspective. The logical analysis of generality, which is pursued in this chapter, leads to the perspective of induction as the inverse of deduction. This forms the basis for an analysis of various logical frameworks for reasoning about generality and for traversing the space of possible hypotheses. Many of these frameworks (such as for instance, θ-subsumption) are employed in the field of inductive logic programming and are introduced below.
2008
- (De Raedt & Ramon, 2008) ⇒ Luc De Raedt, and Jan Ramon. (2008). “Deriving Distance Metrics from Generality Relations.” In: Pattern Recognition Letters 30(3).
- ABSTRACT: Many pattern recognition and machine learning approaches employ a distance metric on patterns, or a generality relation to partially order the patterns. We investigate the relationship amongst them and prove a theorem that shows how a distance metric can be derived from a partial order (and a corresponding size on patterns) under mild conditions. We then discuss the use of the theorem. More specifically, we show how well-known distance metrics for sets, strings, trees and graphs can be derived from their generality relation.
1997
- (Mitchell, 1997) ⇒ Tom M. Mitchell. (1997). “Machine Learning." McGraw-Hill.