Advertisement

A Note on Two Simple Transformations for Improving the Efficiency of an ILP System

  • Vítor Santos Costa
  • Ashwin Srinivasan
  • Rui Camacho
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1866)

Abstract

Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) systems have had note-worthy successes in extracting comprehensible and accurate models for data drawn from a number of scientific and engineering domains. These results suggest that ILP methods could enhance the model-construction capabilities of software tools being developed for the emerging discipline of “knowledge discovery from databases.” One significant concern in the use of ILP for this purpose is that of efficiency. The performance of modern ILP systems is principally affected by two issues: (1) they often have to search through very large numbers of possible rules (usually in the form of definite clauses); (2) they have to score each rule on the data (usually in the form of ground facts) to estimate “goodness”. Stochastic and greedy approaches have been proposed to alleviate the complexity arising from each of these issues. While these techniques can result in order-of-magnitude improvements in the worst-case search complexity of an ILP system, they do so at the expense of exactness. As this may be unacceptable in some situations, we examine two methods that result in admissible transformations of clauses examined in a search. While the methods do not alter the size of the search space (that is, the number of clauses examined), they can alleviate the theorem-proving effort required to estimate goodness. The first transformation simply involves eliminating literals using a weak test for redundancy. The second involves partitioning the set of literals within a clause into groups that can be executed independently of each other. The efficacy of these transformations are evaluated empirically on a number of well-known ILP datasets. The results suggest that for problems that require the use of highly non-determinate predicates, the transformations can provide significant gains as the complexity of clauses sought increases.

Keywords

Logic Program Inductive Logic Programming Inductive Logic Programming System Inductive Logic Program Warren Abstract Machine 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    R. Benigni. (Q)SAR prediction of chemical carcinogenicity and the biological side of the structure activity relationship. In Proceedings of The Eighth International Workshop on QSARs in the Environmental Sciences, 1998. Held in Baltimore, May 16–20, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    I. Bratko and M. Grobelnik. Inductive learning applied to program construction and verification. In Third International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming. pages 279–292, 1993. Available as Technical Report IJS-DP-6707, J. Stefan Inst., Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Codish, M. Bruynooghe, M. G. de la Banda, and M. Hermenegildo. Exploiting goal independence in the analysis of logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 32(3), 1997.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. Cussens. Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Progol. In S. Džeroski and N. Lavrač, editors, Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on ILP, volume 1297 of LNAI, pages 93–108. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A.K. Debnath, R.L Lopez de Compadre, G. Debnath, A.J. Schusterman, and C. Hansch. Structure-Activity Relationship of Mutagenic Aromatic and Heteroaromatic Nitro compounds. Correlation with molecular orbital energies and hydrophobicity. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 34(2):786–797, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    L. Dehaspe, H. Toivonen, and R.D. King. Finding frequent substructures in chemical compounds. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-98), pages 30–36. AAAI Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    B. Dolsak and S. Muggleton. The application of Inductive Logic Programming to finite element mesh design. In S. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, pages 453–472. Academic Press, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. Dzeroski, L. Dehaspe, B. Ruck, and W. Walley. Classification of river water quality data using machine learning. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Development and Application of Computer Techniques Environmental Studies, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. Feng. Inducing temporal fault dignostic rules from a qualitative model. In S. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, pages 473–486. Academic Press, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R.D. King, S.H. Muggleton, A. Srinivasan, and M.J.E. Sternberg. Structure-activity relationships derived by machine learning: The use of atoms and their bond connectivities to predict mutagenicity by inductive logic programming. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, 93:438–442, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    R.D. King, S.H. Muggleton, and M.J.E. Sternberg. Drug design by machine learning: The use of inductive logic programming to model the structure-activity relationships of trimethoprim analogues binding to dihydrofolate reductase. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, 89(23):11322–11326, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. E. Knuth. An Empirical Study of FORTRAN Programs. Software—Practice and Experience, 1:105–133, 1971.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. B. Loveman. Program improvement by source-to-source transformation. JACM, 24(1):121–145, 1977.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    S. Muggleton. Inductive Logic Programming: derivations, successes and short-comings. SIGART Bulletin, 5(1):5–11, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    S. Muggleton. Inverse Entailment and Progol. New Gen. Comput., 13:245–286, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    S. Muggleton, R. King, and M. Sternberg. Predicting protein secondary structure using inductive logic programming. Protein Engineering, 5:647–657, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    S.H. Muggleton and C. Feng. Efficient induction of logic programs. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, Tokyo, 1990. Ohmsha.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. Nienhuys-Cheng and R. de Wolf. Foundations of Inductive Logic Programming, Springer, Berlin, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J.R. Quinlan. Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, 5:239–266, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Sebag and C. Rouveirol. Tractable Induction and Classification in First-Order Logic via Stochastic Matching. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97). Morgan Kaufmann, Los Angeles, CA, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    A. Srinivasan. A study of two probabilistic methods for searching large spaces with ILP. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (under review), 1999.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    A. Srinivasan. A study of two sampling methods for analysing large datasets with ILP. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 3(1):95–123, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    A. Srinivasan and R.D. King. Carcinogenesis predictions using ILP. In N. Lavrac and S. Dzeroski, editors, Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP97), volume 1297 of LNAI, pages 273–287, Berlin, 1997. Springer. A version also in Intelligent Data Analysis in Medicine, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    A. Srinivasan, R.D. King, and D.W. Bristol. An assessment of submissions made to the Predictive Toxicology Evaluation Challenge. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99). Morgan Kaufmann, Los Angeles, CA, 1999.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    A. Srinivasan, R.D. King, S.H. Muggleton, and M.J.E. Sternberg. The Predictive Toxicology Evaluation Challenge. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97). Morgan Kaufmann, Los Angeles, CA, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    A. Srinivasan, S.H. Muggleton, R.D. King, and M.J.E. Sternberg. Theories for mutagenicity: a study of first-order and feature based induction. Artificial Intelligence, 85:277–299, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    J. Zelle and R. Mooney. Learning semantic grammars with constructive inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 817–822. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vítor Santos Costa
    • 1
  • Ashwin Srinivasan
    • 2
  • Rui Camacho
    • 3
  1. 1.COPPE/Sistemas, UFRJ, Brazil and LIACCUniversidade do PortoPortugal
  2. 2.Oxford University Comp. Lab.OxfordUK
  3. 3.LIACC and FEUPUniversidade do PortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations