=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1466/paper13
|storemode=property
|title=From Formal Concepts to Analogical Complexes
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1466/paper13.pdf
|volume=Vol-1466
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/cla/MicletN15
}}
==From Formal Concepts to Analogical Complexes==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1466/paper13.pdf
From formal concepts to analogical complexes
Laurent Miclet1 and Jacques Nicolas2
1
Université de Rennes 1, UMR IRISA, Dyliss team, Rennes, France,
miclet@univ-rennes1.fr
2
Inria Rennes, France, jacques.nicolas@inria.fr
Abstract. Reasoning by analogy is an important component of common
sense reasoning whose formalization has undergone recent improvements
with the logical and algebraic study of the analogical proportion. The
starting point of this study considers analogical proportions on a formal
context. We introduce analogical complexes, a companion of formal con-
cepts formed by using analogy between four subsets of objects in place
of the initial binary relation. They represent subsets of objects and at-
tributes that share a maximal analogical relation. We show that the set of
all complexes can be structured in an analogical complex lattice and give
explicit formulae for the computation of their infimum and supremum.
Keywords: analogical reasoning, analogical proportion, formal concept,
analogical complex, lattice of analogical complexes
1 Introduction
Analogical reasoning [4] plays an important role in human reasoning. It en-
ables us to draw plausible conclusions by exploiting parallels between situations,
and as such has been studied in AI for a long time, e.g., [5, 9] under various
approaches [3]. A key pattern which is associated with the idea of analogical
reasoning is the notion of analogical proportion (AP), i. e. a statement between
two pairs (A, B) and (C, D) of the form ‘A is to B as C is to D’ where all
elements A, B, C, D are in a same category .
However, it is only in the last decade that researchers working in computa-
tional linguistics have started to study these proportions in a formal way [6, 17,
19]. More recently, analogical proportions have been shown as being of particu-
lar interest for classification tasks [10] or for solving IQ tests [2]. Moreover, in
the last five years, there has been a number of works, e.g., [11, 15] studying the
propositional logic modeling of analogical proportions.
In all previous cases, the ability to work on the set of all possible analogical
proportions is required, either for checking missing objects or attributes or for
making informed recommendations or more generally ensuring the completeness
and efficiency of reasoning. In practice the analysis of objects composed of binary
attributes, such as those studied by Formal Concept Analysis, is an important
and easy context where AP are used. The question is whether it is possible to
obtain a good representation of the space of all AP by applying the principles of
c paper author(s), 2015. Published in Sadok Ben Yahia, Jan Konecny (Eds.): CLA
2015, pp. 159–170, ISBN 978–2–9544948–0–7, Blaise Pascal University, LIMOS
laboratory, Clermont-Ferrand, 2015. Copying permitted only for private and
academic purposes.
160 Laurent Miclet and Jacques Nicolas
FCA. A heuristic algorithm to discover such proportions by inspecting a lattice of
formal concepts has been proposed in [14]. Moreover, a definition of an analogical
proportion between formal concepts has been given in [13], as a particular case
of proportions between elements of a lattice, studied also in [18].
In this paper, we are interested in a slightly different task involving a more
integrated view of concept categorization and analogy: looking for the structure
of the space of all AP. Our goal is to build an extension of formal concepts con-
sidering the presence of analogical proportions as the funding relation instead
of the initial binary relation between objects and attributes. We call this ex-
tension analogical complexes, which isolate subcontexts in formal contexts with
a certain structure reflecting the existence of a maximal analogical proportion
between subsets of objects and subsets of attributes.
2 Basics on Analogical Proportion
Definition 1 (Analogical proportion [7, 12]). An analogical proportion (AP)
on a set X is a quaternary relation on X, i.e. a subset of X 4 whose elements
(x, y, z, t), written x : y :: z : t , which reads ’x is to y as z is to t’, must obey the
following two axioms:
1. Symmetry of ’as’: x : y :: z : t ⇔ z : t :: x : y
2. Exchange of means: x : y :: z : t ⇔ x : z :: y : t
In case of formal contexts, objects are described by boolean attributes. An AP
(x, y, z, t) between four Boolean variables exists if the following formula is true:
(x ∧ ¬y) ⇔ (z ∧ ¬t) and (y ∧ ¬x) ⇔ (t ∧ ¬z)
Basically, the formula expresses that the dissimilarity observed between x
and y is the same as the dissimilarity between z and t. An equivalent formula is
x 6= y ⇔ (x = z ∧ y = t) and x = y ⇔ z = t
It has 6 models of Boolean 4-tuples among the 16 possible ones. Note that this
includes the trivial cases where x = y = z = t. Since we are only interested in
this paper in non trivial analogical proportions, we further require that x 6= t
and y 6= z. This reduces the number of possible Boolean 4-tuples in AP to four
and it leads to the notion of analogical schema that we will use for the definition
of analogical complexes.
0011
0 1 0 1
Definition 2 (Analogical schema). The binary matrix AS =
1 0 1 0 is
1100
called an analogical schema. We write AS(i, j) if the value at row i and column
j of matrix AS is 1 (e.g. AS(1,3) and AS(1,4)) .
From formal concepts to analogical complexes 161
The analogical schema may be seen as a formal context on four objects o1 ,
o2 , o3 , o4 that are in the non-trivial AP: o1 : o2 :: o3 : o4 . The figure 1 shows the
associated concept lattice. In this lattice, A ∧ D = B ∧ C and A ∨ D = B ∨ C.
The figure also give names for each column and row profiles that we call object
and attribute types: for instance the first column as type 1 and the second row
as type b.
>
AB AC BD CD 1 2 3 4
{4} {3} {2} {1} a ××
b × ×
c× ×
d××
{a} {b} {c} {d}
A B C D
⊥
Fig. 1. Left:Concept lattice of an analogical schema (reduced labeling).
Analogical schema with object and attribute types.
We use in this paper the zoo dataset proposed by R. Forsyth [8] for illustra-
tion purpose. We call smallzoo the formal context extracted from this database
corresponding to attributes 2 to 9 and to the objects corresponding to the two
largest classes 1 and 2. Moreover, this context has been clarified and we have
chosen arbitrarily one object for each of the 10 different types of objects with
different attribute profiles. The corresponding table is given below.
smallzoo 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18
hair feathers eggs milk airborne aquatic predator toothed type
1 aardvark 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
12 chicken 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
17 crow 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2
20 dolphin 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
22 duck 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 2
28 fruitbat 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
42 kiwi 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
49 mink 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
59 penguin 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2
64 platypus 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
162 Laurent Miclet and Jacques Nicolas
The formal concept lattice is provided in figure 2, as computed by FCA
Extension [16]. It contains 31 elements. The central elements (at least two objects
and two attributes) are listed below:
c(3) {20; 49; 59; 64}, {7; 8} c(6) {1; 20; 28; 49}, {5; 9}
c(7) {1; 20; 49; 64}, {5; 8} c(8) {1; 20; 49}, {5; 8; 9}
c(9) {20; 49; 64}, {5; 7; 8} c(10) {20; 49}, {5; 7; 8; 9}
c(12) {17; 42; 59; 64}, {4; 8} c(13) {22; 59; 64}, {4; 7}
c(14) {59; 64}, {4; 7; 8} c(15) {12; 17; 22; 42; 59}, {3; 4}
c(16) {17; 42; 59}, {3; 4; 8} c(17) {22; 59}, {3; 4; 7}
c(19) {12; 17; 22}, {3; 4; 6} c(22) {1; 28; 49; 64}, {2; 5}
c(23) {1; 28; 49}, {2; 5; 9} c(24) {1; 49; 64}, {2; 5; 8}
c(25) {1; 49}, {2; 5; 8; 9} c(26) {49; 64}, {2; 5; 7; 8}
Example 1. If one extracts in smallzoo the subcontext crossing (12, 28, 59, 49)
- that is, (chicken, fruitbat, penguin, mink)- and (7, 2, 3, 6) -(aquatic, hair,
feathers, airborne)-, it is clearly an analogical schema.
The 4-tuple (chicken : fruitbat :: penguin : mink) is an analogical proportion
that finds a support using attributes (aquatic, hair, feathers, airborne). Each
attribute reflects one of the four possible types of Boolean analogy. For instance,
hair is false for chicken and penguin and true for fruitbat and mink whereas
feathers is true for chicken and penguin and false for fruitbat and mink. The
observed analogy can be explained thanks to this typology: the dissimilarity
between chicken and fruitbat based on the opposition feather/hair is the same
as the dissimilarity between penguin and mink and there are two other opposite
attributes, airborne and aquatic, that explain the similarity within each ’is to’
relation. Note that the analogical schema if fully symmetric and thus one could
also in principle write AP between attributes: hair:feathers::aquatic: airborne.
3 An analogical complex is to an analogical proportion as
a concept is to a binary relation
3.1 Analogical complexes
A formal concept on a context (X, Y, I) is a maximal subcontext for which
relation I is valid. We define analogical complexes in the same way: they are
maximal subcontexts for which the 4-tuples are in AP. This requires to split
objects and attributes in four classes.
Definition 3 (Analogical complex). Given a formal context (X, Y, I), a set
of objects O ⊆ X, O = O1 ∪ O2 ∪ O3 ∪ O4 , a set of attributes A ⊆ Y , A =
A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 ∪ A4 , and a binary relation I, the subcontext (O, A) forms an
analogical complex (O1,4 , A1,4 ) iff
From formal concepts to analogical complexes 163
Fig. 2. Formal concept lattice of formal context smallzoo. Drawing from Concept Ex-
plorer [20].
1. The binary relation is compatible with the analogical schema AS:
∀o ∈ Oi , i = 1..4, ∀a ∈ Aj , j = 1..4, I(o, a) ⇔ AS(i, j).
2. The context is maximal with respect to the first property (⊕ denotes the ex-
clusive or and \ the set-theoretic difference):
∀o ∈ X\O, ∃j ∈ [1, 4], ∃a ∈ Aj , I(o, a) ⊕ AS(i, j).
∀a ∈ Y \A, ∃i ∈ [1, 4], ∃o ∈ Oi , I(o, a) ⊕ AS(i, j).
The first property states that the value of an attribute for an object in a com-
plex is a function of object type and attribute type (integer from 1 to 4) given by
the analogical schema. The second property states that adding an object (resp.
an attribute) to the complex would discard the first property for at least one
attribute (resp. object) value. Note that the ways analogical schema or analogi-
cal complex are defined are completely symmetric. Thus the role of objects and
attributes may be interchanged in all properties on analogical complexes.
164 Laurent Miclet and Jacques Nicolas
Example 2. We extract two subcontexts from smallzoo, highlighting analogical
schemas by sorting rows and columns.
A1 A2 A3 A4
a7 a6
O1 o12 0 1
o17 0 1
o28 0 1
O2 o12 0 1
A1 A2 A3 A4
o17 0 1
a7 a8 a2 a5 a9 a3 a4 a6
o28 0 1
O1 o12 (chicken) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 O3 o20 1 0
O2 o28 (f ruitbat) 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 o49 1 0
O3 o59 (penguin) 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 o59 1 0
O4 o49 (mink) 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 o64 1 0
O4 o20 1 0
o49 1 0
o59 1 0
o64 1 0
These subcontexts are maximal in the sense that it is not possible to add
an object or an attribute without breaking the analogical proportion. They are
associated to the following analogical complexes:
({12}, {28}, {59}, {49}), ({7, 8}, {2, 5, 9}, {3, 4}, {6})
({12, 17, 28}, {12, 17, 28}, {20, 49, 59, 64}, {20, 49, 59, 64}), ({7}, ∅, ∅, {6})
The first example provides a strong analogical relation between four animals
in the context smallzoo since it uses all attributes and all the types of analogy.
Attribute clusters correspond to aquatic predators, toothed animals with hair
and milk, birds (feathers and eggs) and flying animals (airborne). The second
example shows some of the sets in analogical complexes can be empty. In such a
case some sets may be duplicated. Among all complexes, those that exhibit all
types of analogy are particularly meaningful: we call them complete complexes.
3.2 Complete analogical complexes (CAC)
Definition 4. A complex C = (O1,4 , A1,4 ) is complete if none of its eight sets
are empty.
construction, if CA = (O1,4 , A1,4 ) is a complete analogical complex and
By S
if A = i=1,4 Ai , the following formula holds:
∀(o1 , o2 , o3 , o4 ) ∈ O1,4 , ∀(a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 ) ∈ A1,4
(o↑1 ∩ o↑4 ) ∩ A = (o↑2 ∩ o↑3 ) ∩ A = ∅ and o↑1 ∪ o↑4 = o↑2 ∩ o↑3 = A
From formal concepts to analogical complexes 165
The next proposition shows that CAC exhibits strong discrimination and sim-
ilarity properties among pairs of objects and attributes. The similarity condition
alone would lead to the concatenation of independent (non overlapping) formal
concepts. The discrimination condition tempers this tendency by requiring the
simultaneous presence of opposite pairs.
Proposition 1. Let us define on a formal context F C = (X, Y, I) the relations:
discrimination(oi , oj , ak , al ) = I(oi , ak ) ∧ I(oj , al ) ∧ ¬I(oi , al ) ∧ ¬I(oj , ak ).
similarity(oi , oj , ak , al ) = I(oi , ak ) ∧ I(oj , ak ) ∧ I(oi , al ) ∧ I(oj , al ).
A complete analogical complex (O1,4 , A1,4 ) in F C corresponds to a maximal
subcontext such that:
1. object pair discrimination (resp. similarity): ∀(oi , oj ) ∈ Oi × Oj , i 6= j,
∃(ak , al ) ∈ Ak × Al such that discrimination(oi , oj , ak , al )
(resp. similarity(oi , oj , ak , al ));
2. attribute pair discrimination (res. similarity): ∀(ak , al ) ∈ Ak × Al , k 6= l,
∃(oi , oj ) ∈ Oi × Oj such that discrimination(oi , oj , ak , al )
(resp. similarity(oi , oj , ak , al )).
Proof. Since objects and attribute have a completely symmetrical role, it is suffi-
cient to prove the proposition for object pairs. It proceeds easily by enumerating
the possible type pairs with different elements. If objects have type 1 and 2 or
3 and 4, attributes allowing object pair discrimination have type b and c and
attributes allowing object pair similarity have type a and d. If objects have type
1 and 3 or 2 and 4, attributes allowing object pair discrimination have type a
and d and attributes allowing object pair similarity have type b and c. If objects
have type 1 and 4 and if t1 ∈ T1 = {a, b} and t2 ∈ T2 = {c, d}, attributes allow-
ing object pair discrimination have type t1 and t2 and attributes allowing object
pair similarity have different types both in T1 or both in T2 . If objects have type
2 and 3 and if t1 ∈ T1 = {a, c} and t2 ∈ T2 = {b, d}, attributes allowing object
pair discrimination have type t1 and t2 and attributes allowing object pair sim-
ilarity have different types both in T1 or both in T2 . t
u
In case of incomplete complexes, some of these properties are no more relevant
and a degenerate behaviour may appear: some of the sets may be identical. This
fact allows to establish a new proposition on complete complexes:
Proposition 2. In a complete analogical complex, side-by-side intersections of
sets are empty.
Proof. This property holds since when the intersection of two object (resp. at-
tribute) sets in an analogical complex AC is not empty, then AC contains at
least two empty attribute (resp. object) sets. This fact is a consequence of prop-
erty 1.
Indeed, if an object belongs to two different types, their profiles must be the
166 Laurent Miclet and Jacques Nicolas
same. The discrimination property ensures that the profile of two different ob-
ject types differ by at least two different attribute with different types (e.g. if
the object has type 1 and 3, attributes of type b and c should have different
values). Thus it cannot exists attributes of the discriminant type (e.g. attributes
of type b and c in the previous case) and the corresponding sets are empty. This
completes the proof.
The converse of the proposition is not true: if all side-by-side intersections
of sets differ, the complex is not necessary complete. For instance, consider the
following context:
a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6
o1 0 0 0 1 1 1
o2 0 1 1 1 1 1
o3 1 0 0 0 0 1
o4 1 1 1 0 0 0
o5 1 0 1 1 0 0
It contains the following not complete complex:
({o1 }, {o2 }, {o3 }, {o4 }), ({a1 }, {a2 , a3 }, ∅, {a4 , a5 })
4 The lattice of analogical complexes
Definition 5 (Partial Order on analogical complexes). Given two ana-
logical complexes C 1 = (O1,4
1
, A11,4 ) and C 2 = (O1,4
2
, A21,4 ), the partial order ≤ is
defined by
C 1 ≤ C 2 iff Oi1 ⊆ Oi2 for i = 1, 4 and A2i ⊆ A1i for i = 1, 4 .
C 1 is called a sub-complex of C 2 and C 2 is called a super-complex of C 1
As for formal concepts, the set of all complexes has a lattice structure. Let
us first define a derivation operator on analogical quadruplets:
Definition 6 (Derivation on set quadruplets).
Let O = O1 ∪ O2 ∪ O3 ∪ O4 be a set of objects partitioned in four subsets, and
0
A be a set of attributes. For all i and j ∈ [1, 4], one defines Oij = {a ∈ A | ∀o ∈
Oi I(o, a) ⇔ AS(i, j)}
Let A = A1 ∪ A2 ∪ A3 ∪ A4 be a set of attributes partitioned in four subsets,
0
and O be a set of objects. For all i and j ∈ [1, 4], one defines Aij = {o ∈ O | ∀a ∈
Ai I(o, a) ⇔ AS(i, j)}
Finally, we define the derivation on quadruplets as follows:
4
\ 4
\ 4
\ 4
\
0 0 0 0
0
O1,4 =( Oj1 , Oj2 , Oj3 , Oj4 )
j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1
4
\ 4
\ 4
\ 4
\
0 0 0 0
A01,4 = ( Aj1 , Aj2 , Aj3 , Aj4 )
j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1
From formal concepts to analogical complexes 167
0
Example 3. Consider O = ({12}, {28}, {59}, {49}). One has: O11 = {a ∈ A | ¬I(12, a)} =
{2, 5, 7, 8, 9};
0
O21 = {a ∈ A | ¬I(28, a)} = {3, 4, 7, 8};
0
O31 = {a ∈ A | I(59, a)} = {3, 4, 7, 8};
0 T4 0
O41 = {a ∈ A | I(49, a)} = {2, 4, 5, 7, 8} Then O10 = j=1 Oj1 = {7, 8}
Finally, O0 = ({7, 8}, {2, 5, 9}, {3, 4}, {6}).
We exhibit a basic theorem for these complexes that naturally extends the
basic theorem on concepts:
Proposition 3. Given two analogical complexes C 1 = (O1,4
1
, A11,4 ) and C 2 =
2 2
(O1,4 , A1,4 ),
– The join of C 1 and C 2 is defined by C 1 ∧ C 2 = (O1,4 , A1,4 ) where
∀i ∈ [1, 4] Oi = Oi (C 1 ) ∩ Oi (C 2 )
00
A1,4 = A1 (C 1 )∪A1 (C 2 ), A2 (C 1 )∪A2 (C 2 ), A3 (C 1 )∪A3 (C 2 ), A4 (C 1 )∪A4 (C 2 )
– The meet of C 1 and C 2 is defined by C 1 ∨ C 2 = (O1,4 , A1,4 ) where
00
O1,4 = O1 (C 1 )∪O1 (C 2 ), O2 (C 1 )∪O2 (C 2 ), O3 (C 1 )∪O3 (C 2 ), O4 (C 1 )∪O4 (C 2 )
Proof. The meet and the join are dual and one only needs to prove the proposi-
tion for the join. The ordering by set inclusion requires the set of objects Oi of
C 1 ∧ C 2 to be included in Oi (C 1 ) ∩ Oi (C 2 ) and its set of attributes Aj to be in-
cluded in Aj (C 1 ) ∪ Aj C 2 ). Taking exactly the intersection of objects thus ensures
the set of objects to be maximal. The corresponding maximal sets of attributes
may be inferred using the derivation operator ’ we have just defined. Another
way to generate these sets is to apply the derivation operator twice on the union
of sets of attributes.
Example 4. The complex lattice of smallzoo has 24 elements, including 18 com-
plete complexes. It is sketched in figure 3.
In this lattice, for example, the join of the analogical complex numbered 9
and 12, which are as follows
9 = ({12}, {28}, {59, 64}, {20, 49}), ({7}, {9}, {4}, {6})
12 = ({12, 17}, {28}, {59}, {49, 64}), ({7}, {2, 5}, {3}, {6})
is number 15, namely:
15 = ({12}, {28}, {59}, {49}), ({7, 8}, {2, 5, 9}, {3, 4}, {6})
The resulting object sets are for each type the intersection of the two joined
object sets. The resulting attribute sets contain for each type the union of the
two joined attribute sets and may contain other elements with a correct profile
on all objects. For instance, A1 (9 ∧ 12) = {7, 8} is made of the union of A1 (9)
168 Laurent Miclet and Jacques Nicolas
and A1 (12) ({7}) plus attribute 8 since 8 has the right profile (0, 0, 1, 1) on O1,4
(that is, ¬I(12, 8), ¬I(28, 8), I(59, 8) and I(49, 8)).
The meet of the analogical complexes numbered 9 and 12 is number 19,
namely
19 = ({12, 17, 28}, {12, 17, 28}, {20, 49, 59, 64}, {20, 49, 59, 64}), ({7}, ∅, ∅, {6})
5 Conclusion
We have introduced a new conceptual object called analogical complex that uses
a complex relation, analogical proportion, to compare objects with respect to
their attribute values. Although this relation works on set quadruplets instead
of simple sets like in formal concepts, we have shown that it is possible to keep
the main properties of concepts, that is, maximality and comparison at the
level of object or attribute pairs. The set of all complexes are structured within
a lattice that contains two types of elements. The most meaningful ones only
contain non empty sets and are a strong support for doing analogical inference.
An interesting extension of this work would be to develop this inference process
for analogical data mining in a way close to rule generation in FCA.
The degenerate case where some of the sets are empty is more frequent than
in FCA where their presence is limited to the top or bottom of the lattice. The
presence of a single empty set may reflect the lack of some object or attribute
and is thus a possible new research direction for completing a knowledge base or
an ontology. Particularly, analogy in a Boolean framework introduces a form of
negation through the search of dissimilarities (discrimination) between objects.
We have written an implementation the search for complete analogical com-
plexes, using the Answer Set Programming framework [1]. The properties of
definition 3 are translated straightforwardly in logical constraints and the search
of all complexes is achieved by an ASP solver looking for all solutions. The de-
scription of the ASP program would be beyond the scope of this paper but it
can be seen as a relatively simple exercise of extension of the search for formal
concepts by adding a few logical constraints. It is likely that most of the existing
tools of FCA could be adapted the same way for analogical complex analysis.
This would allow to include both categorization and analogy within common
data mining environments.
References
1. Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczyński, M.: Answer set program-
ming at a glance. Commun. ACM 54(12), 92–103 (Dec 2011),
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2043174.2043195
2. Correa, W., Prade, H., Richard, G.: When intelligence is just a matter of copying.
In: et al., L.D.R. (ed.) Proc. 20th Europ. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Montpel-
lier, Aug. 27-31. pp. 276–281. IOS Press (2012)
From formal concepts to analogical complexes 169
3. French, R.M.: The computational modeling of analogy-making. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 6(5), 200 – 205 (2002)
4. Gentner, D., Holyoak, K.J., Kokinov, B.N.: The Analogical Mind: Perspectives
from Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science, and Philosophy, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA (2001)
5. Hofstadter, D., Mitchell, M.: The Copycat project: A model of mental fluidity and
analogy-making. In: Hofstadter, D., The Fluid Analogies Research Group (eds.)
Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies: Computer Models of the Fundamental
Mechanisms of Thought. pp. 205–267. Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY (1995)
6. Lepage, Y.: Analogy and formal languages. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 53
(2001)
7. Lepage, Y.: Analogy and formal languages. In: Proc. FG/MOL 2001. pp. 373–378
(2001), (see also http://www.slt.atr.co.jp/ lepage/pdf/dhdryl.pdf.gz)
8. Lichman, M.: UCI machine learning repository (2013),
http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml
9. Melis, E., Veloso, M.: Analogy in problem solving. In: Handbook of Practical Rea-
soning: Computational and Theoretical Aspects. Oxford Univ. Press (1998)
10. Miclet, L., Bayoudh, S., Delhay, A.: Analogical dissimilarity: definition, algorithms
and two experiments in machine learning. JAIR, 32 pp. 793–824 (2008)
11. Miclet, L., Prade, H.: Handling analogical proportions in classical logic and fuzzy
logics settings. Proc. 10th Eur. Conf. on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches
to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU’09),Verona (2009)
12. Miclet, L., Prade, H.: Handling analogical proportions in classical logic and fuzzy
logics settings. In: Proc. 10th Eur. Conf. on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches
to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU’09),Verona. pp. 638–650. Springer,
LNCS 5590 (2009)
13. Miclet, L., Barbot, N., Prade, H.: From analogical proportions in lattices to pro-
portional analogies in formal concepts. In: ECAI - 21th European Conference on
Artificial Intelligence. Prague, Czech Republic (Aug 2014)
14. Miclet, L., Prade, H., Guennec, D.: Looking for Analogical Proportions in a Formal
Concept Analysis Setting. In: Amedeo Napoli, V.V. (ed.) Conference on Concept
Lattices and Their Applications. pp. 295–307. Nancy, France (Oct 2011)
15. Prade, H., Richard, G.: Homogeneous logical proportions: Their uniqueness and
their role in similarity-based prediction. Proc. of the 13th International Conference
on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR2012 pp. 402 – 412
(2012)
16. Radvansky, M., Sklenar, V.: Fca extension for ms excel 2007,
http://www.fca.radvansky.net (2010)
17. Stroppa, N., Yvon, F.: An analogical learner for morphological analysis. In: Online
Proc. 9th Conf. Comput. Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2005). pp. 120–127
(2005)
18. Stroppa, N., Yvon, F.: Analogical learning and formal proportions: Definitions and
methodological issues. ENST Paris report (2005)
19. Stroppa, N., Yvon, F.: Du quatrième de proportion comme principe inductif :
une proposition et son application à l’apprentissage de la morphologie. Traitement
Automatique des Langues 47(2), 1–27 (2006)
20. Yevtushenko, S.: System of data analysis ”concept explorer”. (in russian). In: Proc.
of the 7th national conference on artificial intelligence (KII-2000) ,Russia. pp. 127–
134 (2000)
170 Laurent Miclet and Jacques Nicolas
∅A
∅A
∅A
∅A
∅ 3, 4, 7, 8 1 3, 4, 6, 7
28 2, 5, 6, 9 ∅ 3, 4, 6, 7
59 3, 4, 7, 8 ∅ 2, 5, 8, 9
∅ 2, 5, 6, 9 22 2, 5, 8, 9
15 4
12 7, 8 1 3, 4, 7
28 2, 5, 9 28 6
59 3, 4 59 8
49 6 22 2, 5, 9
16 10 17 5 2
3
1 6
20, 59 7
28 2
22 8
12
12, 17 7
14 11 18 28 2, 5 7 6
59 3
49, 64 6
9 8 1
12 7 1, 20, 49, 64 3 1, 20, 49 4
28 9 13 28 6 28 6
59, 64 4 42, 59 8 42, 59, 64 8
20, 49 6 12, 22 5 12, 22 9
19
1, 20, 42, 49, 49, 64 ∅
12, 17, 28 7
12, 22, 28 6
12, 17, 28 ∅
1, 20, 42, 49, 49, 64 8
20, 49, 59, 64 ∅
12, 22, 28 ∅
20, 49, 59, 64 6
O∅
O∅
O∅
O∅
Fig. 3. Hasse diagram of the analogical complex lattice for formal context smallzoo.
For reasons of space some nodes are not explicitely given.