ILP: Just Do It

  • David Page
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1861)


Inductive logic programming (ILP) is built on a foundation laid by research in other areas of computational logic. But in spite of this strong foundation, at 10 years of age ILP now faces a number of new challenges brought on by exciting application opportunities. The purpose of this paper is to interest researchers from other areas of computational logic in contributing their special skill sets to help ILP meet these challenges. The paper presents five future research directions for ILP and points to initial approaches or results where they exist. It is hoped that the paper will motivate researchers from throughout computational logic to invest some time into “doing” ILP.


Logic Programming Inductive Logic Programming Stochastic Search Computational Logic Conditional Probability Table 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Becker, T. Sterling, D. Savarese, E. Dorband, U. Ranawake, and C. Packer. Beowulf: A parallel workstation for scientific computation. In Proceedings of the 1995 International Conference on Parallel Processing (ICPP), pages 11–14, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Botta, A. Giordana, L. Saiita, and M. Sebag. Relational learning: Hard problems and phase transitions. 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Craven and J. Kumlien. Constructing biological knowledge bases by extracting information from text sources. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology, Heidelberg, Germany, 1999. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Craven and S. Slattery. Combining statistical and relational methods for learning in hypertext domains. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-98), pages 38–52. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Cussens. Loglinear models for first-order probabilistic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. Stockholm, Sweden, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Dzeroski. Inductive logic programming and knowledge discovery in databases. In U. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth, and R. Uthurusamy, editors, Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Finn, S. Muggleton, D. Page, and A. Srinivasan. Discovery of pharmacophores using Inductive Logic Programming. Machine Learning, 30:241–270, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. Friedman, L. Getoor, D. Koller, and A. Pfeffer. Learning probabilistic relational models. In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Stockholm, Sweden, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. Friedman, D. Koller, and A. Pfeffer. Structured representation of complex stochastic systems. In Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. M. Frisch and C. D. Page. Building theories into instantiation. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Giordana and L. Saitta. Phase transitions in learning with fol languages. Technical Report 97, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Gottlob. Subsumption and implication. Information Processing Letters, 24(2):109–111, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Graham, D. Page, and A. Wild. Parallel inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Conference (SMC-2000), page To appear. IEEE, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Heckerman. A tutorial on learning with bayesian networks. Microsoft Technical Report MSR-TR-95-06, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Heckerman, E. Horvitz, and B. Nathwani. Toward normative expert systems: Part i the pathfinder project. Methods of Information in Medicine, 31:90–105, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. King, S. Muggleton, R. Lewis, and M. 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. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89(23):11322–11326, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. King, S. Muggleton, A. Srinivasan, and M. Sternberg. Structure-activity relationships derived by machine learning: the use of atoms and their bond connectives to predict mutagenicity by inductive logic programming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93:438–442, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Lee. A completeness theorem and a computer program for finding theorems derivable from given axioms. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1967.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. Leung, M. Burl, and P. Perona. Probabilistic affine invariants for recognition. In Proceedings IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Leung and J. Malik. Detecting, localizing and grouping repeated scene elements from images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, page To appear, 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Litzkow, M. Livny, and M. Mutka. Condor—a hunter of idle workstations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pages 104–111, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Marcinkowski and L. Pacholski. Undecidability of the horn-clause implication problem. In Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 354–362. IEEE, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T.M. Mitchell. The need for biases in learning generalizations. Technical Report CBM-TR-117, Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, 1980.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    T.M. Mitchell. Generalisation as search. Artificial Intelligence, 18:203–226, 1982.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Muggleton. Predicate invention and utilization. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 6(1):127–130, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Muggleton. Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, 13:245–286, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Muggleton. Learning stochastic logic programs. In Proceedings of the AAAI2000 Workshop on Learning Statistical Models from Relational Data. AAAI, 2000.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Muggleton and W. Buntine. Machine invention of first-order predicates by inverting resolution. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 339–352. Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Muggleton, R. King, and M. Sternberg. Protein secondary structure prediction using logic-based machine learning. Protein Engineering, 5(7):647–657, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    L. Ngo and P. Haddawy. Probabilistic logic programming and bayesian networks. Algorithms, Concurrency, and Knowledge: LNCS 1023, pages 286–300, 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    L. Ngo and P. Haddawy. Answering queries from context-sensitive probabilistic knowledge bases. Theoretical Computer Science, 171:147–177, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Sebag and C. Rouveirol. Tractable induction and classification in fol. In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 888–892. Nagoya, Japan, 1997.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    B. Selman, H. Kautz, and B. Cohen. Noise strategies for improving local search. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    B. Selman, H. Levesque, and D. Mitchell. A new method for solving hard satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 440–446. AAAI Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    A. Srinivasan and R.C. Camacho. Numerical reasoning with an ILP system capable of lazy evaluation and customised search. Journal of Logic Programming, 40:185–214, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    A. Srinivasan, S. Muggleton, R. King, and M. Sternberg. Theories for mutagenicity: a study of first-order and feature based induction. Artificial Intelligence, 85(1,2):277–299, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Turcotte, S. Muggleton, and M. Sternberg. Application of inductive logic programming to discover rules governing the three-dimensional topology of protein structures. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-98), pages 53–64. Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Y. Wang and D. Skillicorn. Parallel inductive logic for data mining., 2000.
  39. 39.
    R. Wirth and P. O’Rorke. Constraints on predicate invention. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Machine Learning, pages 457–461. Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    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, San Mateo, CA, 1993. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Page
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics and Dept. of Computer SciencesUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations