Functional inductive logic programming with queries to the user

  • F. Bergadano
  • D. Gunetti
Position Papers Inductive Logic Programming
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 667)


The FILP learning system induces functional logic programs from positive examples. For every predicate P, the user is asked to provide a mode (input or output) for each of its argument, and the system assumes that the mode corresponds to a total function, i.e., for a given input there is one and only one corresponding output that makes the predicate true. Functionality serves two goals: it restricts the hypothesis space and it allows the system to ask existential queries to the user. By means of these queries, missing examples can be added to the ones given initially, and this makes the learned programs complete and consistent and the system adequate for learning multiple predicates and recursive clauses in a reliable manner.


  1. [1]
    F. Bergadano and D. Gunetti. Sufficient and Correct Induction of Functional Logic Programs. Tech. Rep. 92.9.2, CS Dept., Univ. of Torino, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. U. Kietz and S. Wrobel. Controlling the Complexity of Learning in Logic through Syntactic and Task-Oriented Models. In Proc. Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming, pages 107–126, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    N. Lavrac, S. Dzeroski, and M. Grobelnik. Learning nonrecursive definitions of relations with linus. In Y. Kodratoff, editor, Proc. of the Machine Learning-EWSL 91, pages 265–281, Porto, Portugal, 1991. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Quinlan. Knowledge Acquisition from Structured Data. IEEE Expert, 6(6):32–37, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    L. De Raedt and M. Bruynooghe. CLINT: a Multistrategy Interactive Concept-Learner and Theory Revision System. In Proc. Workshop on Multistrategy Learning, pages 175–190, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    L. De Raedt and Maurice Bruynooghe. Belief Updating from Integrity Constraints and Queries. Artificial Intelligence, 53:291–307, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Rouveirol. Flattening: a Representation Change for Generalization. Machine Learning, 1993. Special issue on Evaluating and Changing Representation, K. Morik, F. Bergadano and W. Buntine (Eds.).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. Y. Shapiro. Algorithmic Program Debugging. MIT Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    I. Stahl, B. Tausend, and R. Wirth. General-to-specific learning of horn clauses from positive examples. In P. Dewilde and J. Vanderwalle, editors, Proc. of the CompEuro, 1992, pages 436–441, The Hague, Netherlands, 1992. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Wirth and P. O'Rorke. Constraints on predicate invention. In L. A. Birnbaum and G. C. Collins, editors, Proc. of the 8th Int. Workshop on ML, pages 457–461, Evanston, Illinois, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Bergadano
    • 1
  • D. Gunetti
    • 2
  1. 1.University of CataniaCataniaItaly
  2. 2.University of TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations