Skip to main content

Relational Features

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 2170 Accesses

Part of the book series: Cognitive Technologies ((COGTECH))

Abstract

While typical data mining approaches find patterns/models from data stored in a single data table, relational data mining and inductive logic programming approaches (Džeroski & Lavrač, 2001; Lavrač & Džeroski, 1994a) find patterns/models from data stored in more complex data structures, such as graphs, multiple tables, etc., involving multiple relations. This chapter shows how to construct relational features and how to derive a covering table from such complex data structures.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   79.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter is based on Flach and Lavrač (2003).

  2. 2.

    Full Prolog allows one to construct aggregate terms by means of functors. While this facility is crucial to Prolog as a programming language (essentially this is the mechanism for building up data structures), we ignore this possibility because only a few ILP systems are actually able to use functions, and structured terms can be converted into sequences of predicates via a process calledflattening (Rouveirol, 1994).

  3. 3.

    Variable Y isuniversally quantified if \(\forall \!y \in Y\).

  4. 4.

    Variable X isexistentially quantified if \(\exists x \in X\).

  5. 5.

    In the context of relational databases, aforeign key is a field in a relational table that matches a candidate key of another table. The foreign key can be used to cross-reference tables.

  6. 6.

    Put differently, SQL takes the Cartesian product of the tables in the FROM clause, selects the tuples that meet the conditions in the WHERE clause, and projects on the attributes in the SELECT clause.

  7. 7.

    The original attributes have depth 0. A new variable has depth i + 1, where i is the maximum depth of all old variables of the literal where the new variable is introduced.

References

  • Bratko, I. (1990). Prolog programming for artificial intelligence (2nd ed.). Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron-Jones, R. M., & Quinlan, J. R. (1993). Avoiding pitfalls when learning recursive theories. In R. Bajcsy (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), Chambéry, France (pp. 1050–1057). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceri, S., Gottlob, G., & Tanca, L. (1989). What you always wanted to know about datalog (and never dared to ask). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1(1), 146–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceri, S., Gottlob, G., & Tanca, L. (1990). Logic programming and databases (Surveys in computer science). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehaspe, L., & Toivonen, H. (2001). Discovery of relational association rules. In S. Džeroski & N. Lavrač (Eds.), Relational data mining (pp. 189–212). Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Raedt, L. (Ed.). (1995). Advances in inductive logic programming (Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, Vol. 32). Amsterdam/Washington, DC: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Raedt, L., & Dehaspe, L. (1997). Clausal discovery. Machine Learning, 26(2/3), 99–146. Special Issue on Inductive Logic Programming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Džeroski, S., & Lavrač, N. (Eds.). (2001). Relational data mining: Inductive logic programming for knowledge discovery in databases. Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Elmasri, R., & Navathe, S. B. (2006). Fundamentals of database systems (5th ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flach, P. (1993). Predicate invention in inductive data engineering. In P. B. Brazdil (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML-93), Vienna pp. 83–94. Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flach, P. (1994). Simply logical – Intelligent reasoning by example. Chichester, UK/New York: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Flach, P., Giraud-Carrier, C., & Lloyd, J. (1998). Strongly typed inductive concept learning. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-98), Madison, WI (pp. 185–194). Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flach, P., & Lachiche, N. (1999). 1BC: A first-order Bayesian classifier. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-99), Bled, Slovenia (pp. 92–103). Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flach, P., & Lachiche, N. (2001). Confirmation-guided discovery of first-order rules with Tertius. Machine Learning, 42(1/2), 61–95.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Flach, P., & Lavrač, N. (2003). Rule induction. In M. Berthold & D. J. Hand (Eds.), Intelligent data analysis (2nd ed., pp. 229–267). Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Geibel, P., & Wysotzki, F. (1996). Learning relational concepts with decision trees. In L. Saitta (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-96) (pp. 166–174). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, J., & Minker, J. (1992). The impact of logic programming on databases. Communications of the ACM, 35(3), 66–81.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Groff, J. R., & Weinberg, P. N. (2002). SQL, the complete reference (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helft, N. (1989). Induction as nonmonotonic inference. In R. J. Brachman, H. J. Levesque, & R. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-89), Toronto, ON (pp. 149–156). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Orallo, J., & Ramírez-Quintana, M. (1999). A complete schema for inductive functional logic programming. In S. Džeroski & P. Flach (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-99), Bled, Slovenia (pp. 116–127). Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsten, M., Wrobel, S., & Horvath, T. (2001). Distance based approaches to relational learning and clustering. In S. Džeroski & N. Lavrač (Eds.), Relational data mining (pp. 213–232). Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, S., & Frank, E. (2000). Bottom-up propositionalization. In Proceedings of the ILP-2000 Work-In-Progress Track (pp. 156–162). London: Imperial College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, S., Lavrač, N., & Flach, P. (2001). Propositionalization approaches to relational data mining. In S. Džeroski & N. Lavrač (Eds.), Relational data mining (pp. 262–291). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, S., Pfahringer, B., & Helma, C. (2000). Stochastic propositionalization of non-determinate background knowledge. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-2000), Madison, WI (pp. 80–94). Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogel, M. A., Rawles, S., Železný, F., Flach, P., Lavrač, N., & Wrobel, S. (2003). Comparative evaluation of approaches to propositionalization. In T. Horvath & A. Yamamoto (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-2003), Szeged, Hungary (pp. 197–214). Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrač, N., & Džeroski, S. (1994a). Inductive logic programming: Techniques and applications. New York: Ellis Horwood.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lavrač, N., & Džeroski, S. (1994b). Weakening the language bias in LINUS. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 6, 95–119.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lavrač, N., Džeroski, S., & Grobelnik, M. (1991). Learning nonrecursive definitions of relations with LINUS. In Proceedings of the 5th European Working Session on Learning (EWSL-91), Porto, Portugal (pp. 265–281). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrač, N., & Flach, P. (2001). An extended transformation approach to inductive logic programming. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2(4), 458–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, J. W. (1987). Foundations of logic programming (2nd extended ed.). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michie, D., Muggleton, S. H., Page, D., & Srinivasan, A. (1994). To the international computing community: A New East-West challenge (Tech. Rep.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Computing laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muggleton, S. H. (Ed.). (1992). Inductive logic programming. London: Academic.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Muggleton, S. H., & Feng, C. (1990). Efficient induction of logic programs. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, Tokyo (pp. 1–14). Tokyo: Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peña Castillo, L., & Wrobel, S. (2004). A comparative study on methods for reducing myopia of hill-climbing search in multirelational learning. In C. E. Brodley (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-2004), Banff, AB. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J. R. (1990). Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, 5, 239–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J. R. (1991). Determinate literals in inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Machine Learning (ML-91) (pp. 442–446). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J. R., & Cameron-Jones, R. M. (1995a). Induction of logic programs: FOIL and related systems. New Generation Computing, 13(3,4), 287–312. Special Issue on Inductive Logic Programming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouveirol, C. (1994). Flattening and saturation: Two representation changes for generalization. Machine Learning, 14, 219–232. Special issue on Evaluating and Changing Representation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. Y. (1981). An algorithm that infers theories from facts. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-81) (pp. 446–451). Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. Y. (1982). Algorithmic program debugging. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. Y. (1991). Inductive inference of theories from facts. In J. L. Lassez & G. D. Plotkin (Eds.), Computational logic: Essays in honor of Alan Robinson (pp. 199–255). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterling, L., & Shapiro, E. (1994). The art of prolog—Advanced programming techniques (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, J. D. (1988). Principles of database and knowledge base systems (Vol. I). Rockville, MA: Computer Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrobel, S. (2001). Inductive logic programming for knowledge discovery in databases. In S. Džeroski & N. Lavrač (Eds.), Relational data mining (pp. 74–101). Berlin, Germany/New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelezný, F., & Lavrač, N. (2006). Propositionalization-based relational subgroup discovery with RSD. Machine Learning, 62, 33–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fürnkranz, J., Gamberger, D., Lavrač, N. (2012). Relational Features. In: Foundations of Rule Learning. Cognitive Technologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75197-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75197-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75196-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75197-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics