Advertisement

Soft Computing

, 11:459 | Cite as

Improving Expressivity of Inductive Logic Programming by Learning Different Kinds of Fuzzy Rules

  • Mathieu SerrurierEmail author
  • Henri Prade
Focus

Abstract

Introducing fuzzy predicates in inductive logic programming may serve two different purposes: allowing for more adaptability when learning classical rules or getting more expressivity by learning fuzzy rules. This latter concern is the topic of this paper. Indeed, introducing fuzzy predicates in the antecedent and in the consequent of rules may convey different non-classical meanings. The paper focuses on the learning of gradual and certainty rules, which have an increased expressive power and have no simple crisp counterpart. The benefit and the application domain of each kind of rules are discussed. Appropriate confidence degrees for each type of rules are introduced. These confidence degrees play a major role in the adaptation of the classical FOIL inductive logic programming algorithm to the induction of fuzzy rules for guiding the learning process. The method is illustrated on a benchmark example and a case-study database.

Keywords

Inductive logic programming Fuzzy rules 

References

  1. 1.
    Bouchon-Meunier B, Marsala C (1999). Learning fuzzy decision rules. In: Bezdek JC, Dubois D, Prade H (eds). Fuzzy sets in approximate reasoning and information systems,The handbooks of fuzzy sets series. Kluwer, p 279–304Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark P, Niblett T (1989) The cn2 induction algorithm. Mach Learn 3:261–283Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delgado M, Sanchez D, Vila MA (2000) Fuzzy cardinality based evaluation of quantified sentences. Int J Approx Reaso 23:23–66CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drobics M (2004) Choosing the best predicates for data-driven fuzzy modeling. In: IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems p 245–249Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drobics M, Bodenhofer U, Klement EP (2003) FS-FOIL: an inductive learning method for extracting interpretable fuzzy descriptions. Int J Approx Reason 32:131–152CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dubois D, Prade H (1996) What are fuzzy rules and how to use them. Fuzzy Sets Syst 84:169–189CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fertig CS, Freitas AA, Arruda LVR, Kaestner C (1999) A fuzzy beam-search rule induction algorithm. In Zytkow J, Rauch J, (eds) In: Proceedings of PKDD-99, 3 Conference on principles and pratice of knowledge discovery in databases, Vol 1704 in LNAI. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 341–347Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halpern J (1990) An analysis of first-order logics of probability. Artif Intell 46:310–355CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hüllermeier E (2001) Implication-based fuzzy association rules. In: De Raedt L, Siebes A (eds) In: Proceedings of PKDD-01, 5th Conferance on principles and pratice of knowledge discovery in databases, Vol 2168 in LNAI. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 241–252Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Janikow CZ (1998) Fuzzy decision trees: issues and methods. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B: Cybern 28(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klement EP, Mesiar R, Pap E (2000) Triangular norms. Kluwer, DordrechtzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marsala C (1998) Application of fuzzy rule induction to data mining. In:Proceedings of the third international conference on flexible query answering systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 260–271Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitra S, Hayashi Y (2000) Neuro-fuzzy rule generation: survey in soft computing framework. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 11:748–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muggleton SH (1995) Inverse entailment and Progol. New Gener Comput 13:245–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nauck D, Kruse R (1999) Neuro-fuzzy methods in fuzzy rule generation. In:Bezdek JC, Dubois D, Prade H, (eds), Fuzzy sets in approximate reasoning and information systems, The handbooks of fuzzy sets series, Kluwer p 305–334Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nienhuys-Cheng SH, de Wolf R (1997) Foundations of inductive logic programming. LNAI, Vol 1228. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prade H, Richard G, Serrurier M (2003) Enriching relational learning with fuzzy predicates. In: Proceedings of 7th European conference on principle and practice of knowledge discovery in databases (PKDD 2003), LNAI, Vol 2838 Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 399–410.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prade H, Richard G, Serrurier M (2003) On the induction of different kinds of first-order fuzzy rules. In: Proceedings of 7th European conference on symbolic and qualitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty (ECSQARU-03), LNAI,Vol 2711 Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, p 370–381Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quinlan JR (1986) Induction of decision trees. Mach Learning 1:81–106Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quinlan JR (1990) Learning logical definitions from relations. Mach Learn 5:239–266Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quinlan JR (1993) C4.5 Program for machine learning. Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Serrurier M, Prade H, Sudkamp T, Dubois D, Richard G (2004) Learning first order fuzzy rules with their implication operator. In:Proceedings of the 10th international conference on information processing and management of uncertainty in knowledge-based systems (IPMU’04), p 831–838Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shibata D, Inuzuka N, Katoand S, Matsui T, Itoh H (1999) Methodologies for knowledge discovery and data mining. In: Zhong N, Zhou L (eds) In: Proceedings of the third pacific-Asia conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (PAKDD-99), LNAI, Vol 1574. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 268–273Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IRIT, UPSToulouse cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations