Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #294145. 	[Title] Least Generalizations and Greatest Specializations of Sets of Clauses [Abstract] The main operations in Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) are generalization and specialization, which only make sense in a generality order. In ILP, the three most important generality orders are subsumption, implication and implication relative to background knowledge. The two languages used most often are languages of clauses and languages of only Horn clauses. This gives a total of six different ordered languages. In this paper, we give a systematic treatment of the existence or non-existence of least generalizations and greatest specializations of finite sets of clauses in each of these six ordered sets. We survey results already obtained by others and also contribute some answers of our own. Our main new results are, firstly, the existence of a computable least generalization under implication of every finite set of clauses containing at least one non-tautologous function-free clause (among other, not necessarily function-free clauses). Secondly, we show that such a least generalization need not exist under relative implication, not even if both the set that is to be generalized and the background knowledge are function-free. Thirdly, we give a complete discussion of existence and non-existence of greatest specializations in each of the six ordered languages. Please summarise all the given information.

Above are papers related to the following paper: [Paper_ID] Paper #62607. 	[Title] Generalization of Clauses under Implication [Abstract] In the area of inductive learning, generalization is a main operation, and the usual definition of induction is based on logical implication. Recently there has been a rising interest in clausal representation of knowledge in machine learning. Almost all inductive learning systems that perform generalization of clauses use the relation -subsumption instead of implication. The main reason is that there is a well-known and simple technique to compute least general generalizations under -subsumption, but not under implication. However generalization under -subsumption is inappropriate for learning recursive clauses, which is a crucial problem since recursion is the basic program structure of logic programs. We note that implication between clauses is undecidable, and we therefore introduce a stronger form of implication, called T-implication, which is decidable between clauses. We show that for every finite set of clauses there exists a least general generalization under T-implication. We describe a technique to reduce generalizations under implication of a clause to generalizations under -subsumption of what we call an expansion of the original clause. Moreover we show that for every non-tautological clause there exists a T-complete expansion, which means that every generalization under T-implication of the clause is reduced to a generalization under -subsumption of the expansion. Please summarise all the given information.

Paper #294145 has the title `Least Generalizations and Greatest Specializations of Sets of Clauses  
` and the abstract `The main operations in Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) are generalization and specialization, which only make sense in a generality order. In ILP, the three most important generality orders are subsumption, implication and implication relative to background knowledge. The two languages used most often are languages of clauses and languages of only Horn clauses. This gives a total of six different ordered languages. In this paper, we give a systematic treatment of the existence or non-existence of least generalizations and greatest specializations of finite sets of clauses in each of these six ordered sets. We survey results already obtained by others and also contribute some answers of our own. Our main new results are, firstly, the existence of a computable least generalization under implication of every finite set of clauses containing at least one non-tautologous function-free clause (among other, not necessarily function-free clauses). Secondly, we show that such a least generalization need not exist under relative implication, not even if both the set that is to be generalized and the background knowledge are function-free. Thirdly, we give a complete discussion of existence and non-existence of greatest specializations in each of the six ordered languages.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #294145 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].


Paper #294145 has the title `Least Generalizations and Greatest Specializations of Sets of Clauses  
` and the abstract `The main operations in Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) are generalization and specialization, which only make sense in a generality order. In ILP, the three most important generality orders are subsumption, implication and implication relative to background knowledge. The two languages used most often are languages of clauses and languages of only Horn clauses. This gives a total of six different ordered languages. In this paper, we give a systematic treatment of the existence or non-existence of least generalizations and greatest specializations of finite sets of clauses in each of these six ordered sets. We survey results already obtained by others and also contribute some answers of our own. Our main new results are, firstly, the existence of a computable least generalization under implication of every finite set of clauses containing at least one non-tautologous function-free clause (among other, not necessarily function-free clauses). Secondly, we show that such a least generalization need not exist under relative implication, not even if both the set that is to be generalized and the background knowledge are function-free. Thirdly, we give a complete discussion of existence and non-existence of greatest specializations in each of the six ordered languages.
`.
Question: Which category should Paper #294145 be classified as ?
You can select one from ['Neural_Networks', 'Case_Based', 'Theory', 'Reinforcement_Learning', 'Probabilistic_Methods', 'Rule_Learning', 'Genetic_Algorithms'].

This paper should be classified into: Rule_Learning