Advertisement

On the utility of predicate invention in inductive logic programming

  • Irene Stahl
Regular Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 784)

Abstract

The task of predicate invention in ILP is to extend the hypothesis language with new predicates in case that the vocabulary given initially is insufficient for the learning task. However, whether predicate invention really helps to make learning succeed in the extended language depends on the bias that is currently employed.

In this paper we investigate for which commonly employed language biases predicate invention is an appropriate shift operation. We prove that for some restricted languages predicate invention does not help in case that the learning task fails, and characterize the languages for which predicate invention is useful as bias shift operation.

Keywords

Logic Program Learning Task Target Language Learning Problem Inductive Logic Programming 
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.

References

  1. [BM92]
    Bain, M., Muggleton, S. (1992): Non-Monotonic Learing in S. Muggleton (ed): Inductive Logic Programming, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  2. [Bun90]
    Buntine, W. (1990): Constructive Induction in Definite Clause Logic, draftGoogle Scholar
  3. [Fla93]
    Flach, P. A. (1993): Predicate Invention in Inductive Data Engineering, Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  4. [Kie91]
    Kietz, J., Wrobel, S. (1991): Controlling the Complexity of Learning in Logic through Syntactic and Task-Oriented Models, in S. Muggleton (ed): Inductive Logic Programming, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  5. [Kle52]
    Kleene, S. C. (1952): Finite Axiomatizability of Theories in the Predicate Calculus Using Additional Predicate Symbols in S. C. Kleene: Two Papers on the Predicate Calculus, Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society No. 10Google Scholar
  6. [Lin91]
    Ling, C. X. (1991): Inventing Necessary Theoretical Terms in Scientific Discovery and Inductive Logic Programming, Report No. 302, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Western Ontario, London, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  7. [Mug88]
    Muggleton, S. (1988): A Strategy for Constructing New Predicates in First Order Logic, in Proceedings of the Third European Working Session on Learning, PitmanGoogle Scholar
  8. [MB88]
    Muggleton, S., Buntine, W. (1988): Machine Invention of First-Order Predicates by Inverting Resolution, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Machine Learning, Morgan KaufmanGoogle Scholar
  9. [MF90]
    Muggleton, S., Feng, C. (1990): Efficient Induction of Logic Programs, Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, Tokyo, OHMSHAGoogle Scholar
  10. [Mug92]
    Muggleton, S. (1992): Inductive Logic Programming, in S. Muggleton (ed): Inductive Logic Programming, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  11. [MSB92]
    Muggleton, S., Srinivasan, A., Bain, M. (1992): Compression, Significance and Accuracy, in Proceedings of the Ninth International Machine Learning Conference, Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  12. [Qui90]
    Quinlan, J. R. (1990): Learning Logical Definitions from Relations, Machine Learning 5Google Scholar
  13. [Rae91]
    De Raedt, L. (1992): Interactive Theory Revision: an Inductive Logic Programming Approach, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  14. [Rae92]
    De Raedt, L., Bruynooghe, M. (1992): Interactive Concept-Learning and Constructive Induction by Analogy, Machine Learning 8(2)Google Scholar
  15. [Rou91]
    Rouveirol, C. (1991): ITOU: Induction of First Order Theories, in S. Muggleton (ed): Inductive Logic Programming, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  16. [Sha83]
    Shapiro, E. Y. (1983): Algorithmic Program Debugging, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar
  17. [SMB92]
    Srinivasan, A., Muggleton, S., Bain, M. (1992): Distinguishing Exceptions from Noise in Non-Monotonic Learning, in Proceedings of ILP'92, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  18. [STW93]
    Stahl, I., Tausend, B., Wirth, R. (1993): Two Methods for Improving Inductive Logic Programming Systems, Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  19. [STU1]
    Stahl, I. (1993): Predicate Invention in ILP — Decidability, Utility and Decision Criteria, Deliverable STUl of the ESPRIT BRA 6020 ILP, September 1993Google Scholar
  20. [Sta93]
    Stahl, I. (1993): Properties of Inductive Logic Programming in Function-Free Horn Logic, this volumeGoogle Scholar
  21. [Tau92]
    Tausend, B. (1992): Using and Adapting Schemes for the Induction of Horn Clauses, ECAI-92 Workshop on Logical Approaches to Machine Learning, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  22. [Wir89]
    Wirth, R. (1989): Lernverfahren zur Vervollständigung von Hornklauselmengen durch inverse Resolution, Dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, Institut für InformatikGoogle Scholar
  23. [Wir91a]
    Wirth, R., O'Rorke, P. (1991): Constraints on Predicate Invention in Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Machine Learning, Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  24. [Wro]
    Wrobel, S.: Exploiting a Problem-Solving Context to Focus Concept Formation, to appear in Machine Learning JournalGoogle Scholar
  25. [YS91]
    Yardeni, E., Shapiro, E. (1991): A Type System for Logic Programs, Journal of Logic Programming 10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Stahl
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultät InformatikUniversität StuttgartStuttgart

Personalised recommendations