Advertisement

Machine Learning

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 107–150 | Cite as

Interactive concept-learning and constructive induction by analogy

  • Luc de Raedt
  • Maurice Bruynooghe
Article

Abstract

The available concept-learners only partially fulfill the needs imposed by the learning apprentice generation of learners. We present a novel approach to interactive concept-learning and constructive induction that better fits the requirements imposed by the learning apprentice paradigm. The approach is incorporated in the system Clint-Cia, which integrates several user-friendly features into one working whole: it is interactive, generates examples, shifts its bias, identifies concepts in the limit, copes with indirect relevance, recovers from errors, performs constructive induction and invents new concepts by analogy to previously learned ones.

Keywords

Inductive logic programming concept-learning constructive induction experimentation 

References

  1. Aben, M., & Van Someren, M. (1990). Heuristic refinement of logic programs. In L.C. Aiello (Ed.),Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 7–12). Pitman.Google Scholar
  2. Brachman, R.J., & Schmolze, J.G. (1985). An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system.Cognitive Science, 9, 171–216.Google Scholar
  3. Buntine, W. (1987). Induction of horn-clauses: Methods and the plausible generalization algorithm.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 26, 499–520.Google Scholar
  4. Buntine, W. (1988). Generalized subsumption and its application to induction and redundancy.Artificial Intelligence, 36, 375–399.Google Scholar
  5. Chouraqui, E. (1985). Construction of a model for reasoning by analogy. In L. Steels and J.A. Campbell (Eds.),Progress in artificial intelligence. Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  6. De Jong, G., & Mooney, R. (1986). Explanation based learning: An alternative view.Machine Learning, 1, 145–176.Google Scholar
  7. De Raedt, L. (1991).Interactive concept-learning. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
  8. De Raedt, L., & Bruynooghe, M. (1988). On interactive concept-learning and assimilation. In D. Sleeman (Ed.),Proceedings of the Third European Working Session On Learning (pp. 167–176). Pitman.Google Scholar
  9. De Raedt, L., & Bruynooghe, M. (1989a). Constructive induction by analogy. InProceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Machine Learning (pp. 476–477). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  10. De Raedt, L., & Bruynooghe, M. (1989b). Constructive induction by analogy: A method to learn how to learn? InProceedings of the Fourth European Working Session on Learning (pp. 189–200). Pitman.Google Scholar
  11. De Raedt, L., & Bruynooghe, M. (1989c). On explanation and bias in inductive concept-learning. InProceedings of the Third European Knowledge Acquisition for knowledge based systems Workshop (pp. 338–353).Google Scholar
  12. De Raedt, L., & Bruynooghe, M. (1989d). Towards friendly concept-learners. InProceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 849–856). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  13. De Raedt, L., & Bruynooghe, M. (1990a). Indirect relevance and bias in inductive concept-learning.Knowledge Acquisition, 2, 365–370.Google Scholar
  14. De Raedt, L., & Bruynooghe, M. (1990b). On negation and three-valued logic in interactive concept-learning. In L.C. Aiello (Ed.),Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 207–212). Pitman.Google Scholar
  15. De Raedt, L., Bruynooghe, M. & Martens, B. (1991). Integrity constraints and interactive concept learning. InProceedings of the Eighth Machine Learning Workshop (pp. 394–398). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  16. De Raedt, L., Feyaerts, J., & Bruynooghe, M. (1991). Acquiring object-knowledge for learning systems. In Y. Kodratoff (Ed.),Proceedings of the Fifth European Working Session on Learning (pp. 245–264), volume 2 ofLecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Dietterich, T.G., & Michalski, R.S. (1985). Discovering patterns in sequences of events.Artificial Intelligence, 25, 257–294.Google Scholar
  18. Emde, W. (1989). An inference engine for multiple theories. In K. Morik (Ed.),Knowledge Representation and Organization in Machine Learning, volume 347 ofLecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Emde, W., Habel, C.U., & Rollinger, C.R. (1983). The discovery of the equator or concept driven learning. InProceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 455–458). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  20. Genesereth, M., & Nilsson, N.J. (1987).Logical foundatons of artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  21. Kibler, D., & Langley, P. (1988). Machine learning as an experimental science. InProceedings of the Third European Working Session on Learning (pp. 81–92). Pitman.Google Scholar
  22. Kodratoff, Y. (1988).Introduction to machine learning. Pitman.Google Scholar
  23. Kodratoff, Y. (1990). Combining similarity and causality in creative analogy. In L.C. Aiello (Ed.),Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 398–403). Pitman.Google Scholar
  24. Kodratoff, Y., & Tecuci, G. (1987). Disciple-1: Interactive system in weak theory fields. InProceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 271–273). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  25. Krawchuk, B., & Witten, I. (1988). On asking the right questions. InProceedings of the Fifth Machine Learning Conference (pp. 15–22). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  26. Langley, P. (1985). Strategy acquisition governed by experimentation. In L. Steels and J. Campbell (Eds.),Progress in artificial intelligence. Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  27. Lenat, D. (1983). The role of heuristics in learning by discovery: Three case studies. In R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T.M. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach. Tioga Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  28. Lenat, D., & Brown, J.S. (1983). Why AM and EURISCO appear to work.Artificial Intelligence, 23, 269–294.Google Scholar
  29. Loveland, D.W. (1978).Automated theorem proving: A logical basis. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  30. Mehra, P., Rendell, L.A., & Wah, B.W. (1989). Principled constructive induction. InProceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 651–657). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  31. Michalski, R.S. (1983). A theory and methodology of inductive learning. In R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T.M. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, volume 1. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  32. Michalski, R.S., Carbonell, J.G., & Mitchell, T.M. (1983).Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, volume 1. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  33. Minton, S. (1988). Quantitative results concerning the utility of explanation based learning. InProceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 564–569). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  34. Mitchell, T.M. (1982). Generalization as search.Artificial Intelligence, 18, 203–226.Google Scholar
  35. Mitchell, T.M., Keller, R.M., & Kedar-Cabelli, S.T. (1986). Explanation based generalization: A unifying view.Machine Learning, 1, 47–80.Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell, T.M., Mahadevan, S. & Steinberg, L.I. (1985). Leap: A learning apprentice for VLSI design. InProceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 573–580). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  37. Morik, K. (1989). Sloppy modeling. In K. Morik (Ed.),Knowledge Representation and Organization in Machine Learning, volume 347 ofLecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Muggleton, S. (1987). Duce, an oracle based approach to constructive induction. InProceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 287–292). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  39. Muggleton, S., & Buntine, W. (1988). Machine invention of first order predicates by inverting resolution. InProceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 339–351). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  40. Muggleton, S., & Feng, C. (1990). Efficient induction of logic programs. InProceedings of the First Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory. Oshima, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  41. Poetschke, D. (1989). Analogical reasoning for second generation expert systems. In K. Jantke (Ed.),Analogical and Inductive Inference volume 397 ofLecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. Quinlan, J.R. (1990). Learning logical definition from relations.Machine Learning, 5, 239–266.Google Scholar
  43. Rendell, L. (1989). Comparing systems and analyzing functions to improve constructive induction. InProceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Machine Learning (pp. 461–464). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  44. Rendell, L., Seshu, R., & Tcheng, D. (1987). More robust concept-learning using dynamically variable bias. InProceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Machine Learning (pp. 66–78). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  45. Ritchie, G.D., & Hanna, F.K. (1983). AM: A case study in AI methodology.Artificial Intelligence, 23, 249–268.Google Scholar
  46. Rouveirol, C., & Puget, J.-F. (1989). A simple solution for inverting resolution. In K. Morik (Ed.),Proceedings of the Fourth European Working Session on Learning (pp. 201–211). Pitman.Google Scholar
  47. Sammut, C., & Banerji, R. (1986). Learning concepts by asking questions. In R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T.M. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach, volume 2. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  48. Shapiro, E.Y. (1983).Algorithmic program debugging. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, R.G., Mitchell, T.M., Winston, H.A., & Buchanan, B.G. (1985). Representation and use of explicit justifications for knowledge base refinement (pp. 673–680). InProceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  50. Stepp, R.E., Whitehall, B.L., & Lawrence, B.H. (1988). Towards intelligent machine learning algorithms. InProceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 333–338). Pitman.Google Scholar
  51. Subramanian, D., & Feigenbaum, J. (1986). Factorization in experiment generation. InProceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 518–522). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  52. Tecuci, G. (1988).DISCIPLE: A theory, methodology and system of expert knowledge acquisition. Ph.D. thesis, Universite Paris-Sud, Orsay.Google Scholar
  53. Tecuci, G., & Kodratoff, Y. (1990). Apprenticeship learning in nonhomogeneous domain theories. In Y. Kodratoff and R.S. Michalski (Eds.),Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach, volume 3. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  54. Thieme, S. (1989). The acquisition of model-knowledge for a model-driven machine learning approach. In K. Morik (Ed.),Knowledge Representation and Organization in Machine Learning volume 347 ofLecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  55. Utgoff, P.E. (1986). Shift of bias for inductive concept-learning. In R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T.M. Mitchell, (Eds.),Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  56. Utgoff, P.E., & Mitchell, T.M. (1982). Acquisition of appropriate bias for concept learning. InProceedings of the Second National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 414–418). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  57. Vrain, C., & Lu, C.R. (1988). An analogical method to do incremental learning of concepts. InProceedings of the Third European Working Session on Learning (pp. 227–235). Pitman.Google Scholar
  58. Wrobel, S. (1988). Automatic representation adjustment in an observational discovery system. In D. Sleeman (Ed.),Proceedings of the Third European Working Session on Learning. Pitman.Google Scholar
  59. Wrobel, S. (1989). Demand driven concept-formation. In K. Morik (Ed.),Knowledge Representation and Organization in Machine Learning, volume 347 ofLecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 253–262). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  60. Yokomori, T. (1986). Logic program forms.New Generation Computing, 4, 305–320.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luc de Raedt
    • 1
  • Maurice Bruynooghe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenHeverleeBelgium

Personalised recommendations