Experimental Comparison of Graph-Based Relational Concept Learning with Inductive Logic Programming Systems

  • Jesus A. Gonzalez
  • Lawrence B. Holder
  • Diane J. Cook
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2583)

Abstract

We compare our graph-based relational concept learning approach “SubdueCL” with the ILP systems FOIL and Progol. In order to be fair in the comparison, we use the conceptual graphs representation. Conceptual graphs have a standard translation from graphs into logic. In this way, we introduce less bias during the translation process. We experiment with different types of domains. First, we show our experiments with an artificial domain to describe how SubdueCL performs with the conceptual graphs representation. Second, we experiment with several flat and relational domains. The results of the comparison show that the SubdueCL system is competitive with ILP systems in both flat and relational domains.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cameron-Jones, R. M., and J. R. Quinlan. (1994). Efficient Top-down Induction of Logic Programs. SIGART Bulletin, 5, 1:33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook, D. J., and L. B. Holder. (1994). Substructure Discovery Using Minimum Description Length and Background Knowledge. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. 1:231–55.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook, D. J., and L. B. Holder. (2000). Graph-Based Data Mining. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 15(2):32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gonzalez, Jesus A. (2001). Empirical and Theoretical Análisis of Relational Concept Learning Using a Graph-Based Representation. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonzalez, Jesus A., L. B. Holder, and Diane J. Cook. (2001). Application of Graph-Based Concept Learning to the Predictive Toxicology Domain. Proceedings of the Predictive Toxicology Challenge Workshop.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keogh, E., C. Blake, and C. J. Merz. (1998). In UCI Repository of Machine Learning Databases.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lehmann, F. (1992). Semantics Networks in Artificial Intelligence. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muggleton S. (1995). Inverse Entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, 13:245–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muggleton, S. and C. Feng. (1992). Efficient Induction of Logic Programs. Inductive Logic Programming, Academic Press 281–97.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rissanen, J. (1989). Stochastic Complexity in Statistical Inquiry. World Scientific Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sowa, J. F. (1984). Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesus A. Gonzalez
    • 1
  • Lawrence B. Holder
    • 2
  • Diane J. Cook
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto Nacional de AstrofisicaOptica y Electronica (INAOE)PueblaMexico
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations