Learnability of constrained logic programs

  • Sašo Džeroski
  • Stephen Muggleton
  • Stuart Russell
Position Papers Learnability
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 667)

Abstract

The field of Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) is concerned with inducing logic programs from examples in the presence of back-ground knowledge. This paper defines the ILP problem and describes several syntactic restrictions that are often used in ILP. We then derive some positive results concerning the learnability of these restricted classes of logic programs, by reduction to a standard propositional learning problem. More specifically, k-literal predicate definitions consisting of constrained, function-free, nonrecursive program clauses are polynomially PAC-learnable under arbitrary distributions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Angluin, M. Frazier and L. Pitt. Learning conjunctions of Horn clauses. Machine Learning, 9(2): 147–164, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. De Raedt. Interactive Theory Revision: An Inductive Logic Programming Approach. Academic Press, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Džeroski and I. Bratko. Handling noise in inductive logic programming. In Proc. Second International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming. ICOT TM-1182, Tokyo, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Džeroski and N. Lavrač. Refinement graphs for FOIL and LINUS. In S.H. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, pages 319–333, Academic Press, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Džeroski, S. Muggleton and S. Russell. PAC-learnability of determinate logic programs. In Proc. Fifth ACM Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 128–135, ACM Press, Baltimore, MD, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Haussler. Quantifying inductive bias: AI learning algorithms and Valiant's model. Artificial Intelligence, 36(2): 177–221, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Lavrač, S. Džeroski and M. Grobelnik. Learning nonrecursive definitions of relations with LINUS. In Proc. Fifth European Working Session on Learning, pages 265–281, Springer, Berlin, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming (2nd edn), Springer, Berlin, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Li and P. Vitányi. Learning simple concepts under simple distributions. SIAM Journal of Computing, 20(5): 911–935, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. H. Muggleton. Inductive Logic Programming, Academic Press, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. D. Page and A. M. Frisch. Generalization and learnability: a study of constrained atoms. In S. H. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, pages 29–61, Academic Press, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. R. Quinlan. Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, 5(3): 239–266, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Rouveirol. Extensions of inversion of resolution applied to theory completion. In S.H. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, pages 63–92, Academic Press, London, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Y. Shapiro. Algorithmic Program Debugging, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sašo Džeroski
    • 1
  • Stephen Muggleton
    • 2
  • Stuart Russell
    • 3
  1. 1.Institut Jožef StefanLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Oxford University Computing LaboratoryOxfordUK
  3. 3.Computer Science DivisionUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations