Machine Learning

, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 163–192

Block-wise construction of tree-like relational features with monotone reducibility and redundancy

Article

Abstract

We describe an algorithm for constructing a set of tree-like conjunctive relational features by combining smaller conjunctive blocks. Unlike traditional level-wise approaches which preserve the monotonicity of frequency, our block-wise approach preserves monotonicity of feature reducibility and redundancy, which are important in propositionalization employed in the context of classification learning. With pruning based on these properties, our block-wise approach efficiently scales to features including tens of first-order atoms, far beyond the reach of state-of-the art propositionalization or inductive logic programming systems.

Keywords

Inductive logic programming Relational machine learning Propositionalization 

References

  1. Blockeel, H., Dehaspe, L., Demoen, B., Janssens, G., Ramon, J., & Vandecasteele, H. (2002). Improving the efficiency of inductive logic programming through the use of query packs. The Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 16(1), 135–166. MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bringmann, B., Zimmermann, A., Raedt, L. D., & Nijssen, S. (2006). Don’t be afraid of simpler patterns. In PKDD ’06: 10th European conference on principles and practice of knowledge discovery in databases (pp. 55–66). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis, J., Burnside, E., Page, D., Dutra, I., & Costa, V. S. (2005). Learning Bayesian networks of rules with SAYU. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on Multi-relational mining. New York: ACM. Google Scholar
  4. Dechter, R. (2003). Constraint processing. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
  5. Dehaspe, L., & Toivonen, H. (1999). Discovery of frequent datalog patterns. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 3(1), 7–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dolsak, B., & Muggleton, S. (1992). The application of inductive logic programming to finite element mesh design. In Inductive logic programming (pp. 453–472). San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  7. Fagin, R. (1983). Degrees of acyclicity for hypergraphs and relational database schemes. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 30(3), 514–550. MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Fan, R.-E., Chang, K.-W., Hsieh, C.-J., Wang, X.-R., & Lin, C.-J. (2008). Liblinear: a library for large linear classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 1871–1874. Google Scholar
  9. Helma, C., King, R. D., Kramer, S., & Srinivasan, A. (2001). The predictive toxicology challenge 2000–2001. Bioinformatics, 17(1), 107–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koopman, A., & Siebes, A. (2009). Characteristic relational patterns. In KDD ’09: proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 437–446). New York: ACM. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kramer, S., & De Raedt, L. (2001). Feature construction with version spaces for biochemical applications. In ICML ’01: proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on machine learning (pp. 258–265). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann. Google Scholar
  12. Krogel, M. A., & Wrobel, S. (2001). Transformation-based learning using multirelational aggregation. In ILP ’01: proceedings of the 11th international conference on inductive logic programming (pp. 142–155). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  13. Krogel, M.-A., Rawles, S., Železný, F., Flach, P. A., Lavrač, N., & Wrobel, S. (2003). Comparative evaluation of approaches to propositionalization. In International conference on inductive logic programming (ILP 03’). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  14. Kuželka, O., & Železný, F. (2009). Block-wise construction of acyclic relational features with monotone irreducibility and relevancy properties. In ICML 2009: the 26th int. conf. on machine learning. Google Scholar
  15. Landwehr, N., Passerini, A., De Raedt, L., & Frasconi, P. (2006). kFOIL: learning simple relational kernels. In AAAI’06: proceedings of the 21st national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 389–394). Menlo Park: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
  16. Landwehr, N., Kersting, K., & De Raedt, L. (2007). Integrating naïve bayes and FOIL. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 8, 481–507. Google Scholar
  17. Lavrač, N., & Flach, P. A. (2001). An extended transformation approach to inductive logic programming. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2(4), 458–494. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavrač, N., Gamberger, D., & Jovanoski, V. (1999). A study of relevance for learning in deductive databases. Journal of Logic Programming, 40(2/3), 215–249. CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Lodhi, H., & Muggleton, S. (2005). Is mutagenesis still challenging. In International conference on inductive logic programming (ILP ’05), late-breaking papers (pp. 35–40). Google Scholar
  20. Muggleton, S. (1995). Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, Special Issue on Inductive Logic Programming, 13(3–4), 245–286. Google Scholar
  21. Nienhuys-Cheng, S.-H., & de Wolf, R. (1997). Foundations of inductive logic programming. New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  22. Nijssen, S., & Kok, J. N. (2005). The Gaston tool for frequent subgraph mining. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 127(1), 77–87. CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Perkins, S., & Theiler, J. (2003). Online feature selection using grafting. In ICML (pp. 592–599). Menlo Park: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
  24. Quinlan, J. R. (1990). Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, 5(3), 239–266. Google Scholar
  25. Scheffer, T., & Herbrich, R. (1997). Unbiased assessment of learning algorithms. In 15th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI ’97) (pp. 798–803). Google Scholar
  26. Srinivasan, A., King, R. D., Muggleton, S., & Sternberg, M. J. E. (1997). Carcinogenesis predictions using ILP. In ILP ’97: proceedings of the 7th international workshop on inductive logic programming (pp. 273–287). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  27. Swamidass, S. J., Chen, J., Bruand, J., Phung, P., Ralaivola, L., & Baldi, P. (2005). Kernels for small molecules and the prediction of mutagenicity, toxicity and anti-cancer activity. Bioinformatics, 21(1), 359–368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Leeuwen, M., Vreeken, J., & Siebes, A. (2006). Compression picks item sets that matter. In PKDD ’06: 10th European conference on principles and practice of knowledge discovery in databases (pp. 585–592). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vapnik, V. N. (1995). The nature of statistical learning theory. Berlin: Springer. MATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Železný, F., & Lavrač, N. (2006). Propositionalization-based relational subgroup discovery with RSD. Machine Learning, 62, 33–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2005). Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Wörlein, M., Meinl, T., Fischer, I., & Philippsen, M. (2005). A quantitative comparison of the subgraph miners MoFa, gSpan, FFSM, and Gaston. In LNCS. PKDD 2005, 9th European conference on principles and practice of knowledge discovery in databases (pp. 392–403). Berlin: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yannakakis, M. (1981). Algorithms for acyclic database schemes. In International conference on very large data bases (VLDB ’81) (pp. 82–94). Google Scholar
  34. Žáková, M., Železný, F., Garcia-Sedano, J., Tissot, C. M., Lavrač, N., Křemen, P., & Molina, J. (2007). Relational data mining applied to virtual engineering of product designs. In International conference on inductive logic programming (ILP ’07). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations