Generalized unification as background knowledge in learning logic programs
In this paper we investigate the roles of generalized unification as background knowledge in learning logic programs. Our framework of learning is PAC-learning. We treat logic programs in which function symbols and recursions appear. We generalize the hereditary programs, which Miyano et. al have defined to investigate the learnability of elementary formal systems, by introducing generalized unification as the back-ground knowledge of the learning algorithm. As a consequence, we succeed to revise Miyano's algorithm so that it treats another class of logic programs. Our algorithm is superior to the algorithm given by Džeroski et. al in the point that it uses no queries on target predicates. We also define the size of a sample S not as the number of atoms in S, but as the number of symbols in S. This becomes possible because the evaluation of destructors in generalized unification corresponds to the use of background predicates in Džeroski's algorithm.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Džeroski, S., Mugglton, S., and Russell, S., PAC-Learnability of Determinate Logic Programs, in Proceedings of the 5th Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, 128–135, Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- 5.Fribourg, L., Prolog with Simplification, in Proceedings of France-Japan Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science Symposium, 239–266, ICOT, 1986.Google Scholar
- 6.Hölldobler, S., From Paramodulation to Narrowing, in Kowalski, R. A. and Bowen, K. A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, 327–342, The MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
- 8.Jaffar, J., Lassez, J.-L., and Maher, M. J., Logic Programming Scheme, in DeGroot, D. and Lindstrom, G. (eds.), Logic Programming: Functions, Relations, and Equations, 441–467, Prentice-Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
- 9.Lloyd, J. W., Foundations of Logic Programming: Second, Extended Edition, Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
- 10.Miyano, S., Shinohara, A., and Shinohara, T., Which Classes of Elementary Formal Systems are Polynomial-time Learnable?, in S. Arikawa and A. Maruoka and T. Sato (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Algorithmic Learning Theory, 139–150, JSAI, 1991.Google Scholar
- 11.Miyano, S., Shinohara, A., and Shinohara, T., Learning Elementary Formal Sytems and an Application to Discovering Motifs in Proteins, Technical Report RIFIS-TR-CS-37, Research Institute of Fundamental Information Science, Kyushu University, 1991, revised 1993.Google Scholar
- 12.Mugglton, S. and Frish, A. M., Efficient Induction of Logic Programs, in S. Arikawa and S. Goto and S. Ohsuga and T. Yokomori (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Algorithmic Learning Theory, 368–381, JSAI, 1990.Google Scholar
- 13.Natarajan, B. K., Machine Learning: A Theoretical Approach, Morgan-Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
- 14.Page Jr., C. D. and Frish, A. M., Generalization and Learnability: A study of Constrained Atoms, in S. Mugglton (ed.), Inductive Logic Programming, 29–61, Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- 15.Plotkin, G. D., Building in Equational Theories, in Machine Intelligence 7, 132–147, Edinburgh University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
- 16.Sato, T. and Tamaki, H., Transformational Logic Program Synthesis, in Proceedings of International Conference on FGCS 1984, 195–201, ICOT, 1984.Google Scholar
- 18.Yamamoto, A., A Theoretical Combination of SLD-Resolution and Narrowing, in Lassez, J.-L. (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming, 470–487, The MIT Press, 1987.Google Scholar