Knowledge level model of a configurable learning system

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 867)


This paper presents the knowledge level model of a configurable learning system that follows a Generate and Test strategy. The knowledge level model makes explicit the elementary functionalities of the learning tool (referred to as learning operations), the control of the learning primitives (referred to as bias), and the different implementations of the learning primitives. The proposed model is based upon the inference structure formalism of KADS and will be used as an interface when interacting with the user. This explicit representation of learning operations and related bias will make the experimentation of different configurations of the proposed learning tool easier for a knowledge engineer developing a Knowledge Based application.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    H. Ade, L. De Raedt, and Bruynooghe M. Declarative bias for specific-to-general ilp systems. Machine Learning, 1994. Special Issue on Declarative Bias, submitted.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Albert, E. Brunet, J. Gonzague, and I. Bousquet. Kads-tool, a case tool for the commonkads methodology. In Conference of International Association of Knowledge Engineers, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Bergadano and A. Giordana. A knowledge intensive approach to concept induction. In Proceedings of the 5th International conference on Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Bergadano and D. Gunetti. Learning clauses by tracing derivations. Technical report, University of Torino, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.C. Berwick. Learning from positive-only examples: The subset principles and three cases studies. In R.S Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T.M. Mitchell, editors, Machine Learning II: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, pages 625–646. Morgan Kaufmann, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breuker, Bredeweg, Valente, and Van de Velde. Reusable problem solving components: the commonkads library. In 3 rd KADS User Meeting, Munich., 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Causse. A model for control knowledge. In Proceedings of the 8th Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop (Banff'94), Banff, Alberta, Canada, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Cohen. Learnability of restricted logic programs. In Proceedings of the Inductive Logic Programming Workshop, pages 41–71, 1993. Bled, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    MLT CONSORTIUM. Final public report. Technical report, 1993. Esprit II Project 2154.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. De Raedt. Interactive Theory Revision: an inductive logic programming approach. Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. De Raedt and M. Bruynooghe. A unifying framework for concept-learning algorithms. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 7(3):251–269, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Desjardins. Proceedings of the AAAI 92 workshop on Declarative Biases. 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T.G. Dietterich. Learning at the knowledge level. Machine Learning, 1:287–316, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Džeroski, S. Muggleton, and S. Russel. Pac learnability of logic programs. In ACM, editor, Proceedings of the 1992 Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 128–135, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Gordon. Proceedings of the ML92 workshop on Biases in Inductive Learning. 1992. Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Grosof and S. Russell. Shift of bias as non-monotonic reasoning. In P.B. Brazdil and K. Konolige, editors, Machine Learning, Meta-Reasoning and Logics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Haussler. Applying valiant's learning framework to ai concept-learning problems. In Y. Kodratoff and R.S. Michalski, editors, Machine Learning: an artificial intelligence approach, volume 3. Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Marcus. Salt: a knowledge acquisition tool for propose and revise systems. In Marcus, editor, Automating Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems. Kluwer Academic, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Marcus and J. McDermott. Salt: A knowledge acquisition language for propose and revise systems. Artificial Intelligence, 39(1):1–38, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R.S. Michalski. A theory and methodology of inductive learning. In R.S Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T.M. Mitchell, editors, Machine Learning: an artificial intelligence approach, volume 1. Morgan Kaufmann, 1983.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T.M. Mitchell. Generalization as search. Artificial Intelligence, 18:203–226, 1982.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T.M. Mitchell. The need for biases in learning generalizations. In Readings in Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. Mladenic. Combinatorial optimization in inductive concept learning. In Proceedings of Int. Conf. on Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. Morik, S. Wrobel, J.-U. Kietz, and W. Emde. Knowledge Acquisition and Machine Learning — Theory, Methods, and Applications. Academic Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    S. Muggleton and W. Buntine. Machine invention of first order predicates by inverting resolution. In Proceedings of the 5th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, pages 339–351. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Muggleton and L. De Raedt. Inductive logic programming: Theory and methods. Journal of Logic Programming, to appear.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Muggleton and C. Feng. Efficient induction of logic programs. In Proceedings of the 1st conference on algorithmic learning theory. Ohmsha, Tokyo, Japan, 1990.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C. Nédellec. How to specialize by theory refinement. In Proceedings of ECAI-92, 1992.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    C. Nédellec and C. Rouveirol. Hypothesis selection biases for incremental learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium Series workshop on Issues for Incremental Learning, 1993.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    L. O'Hara. Knowledge acquisition in vital. Technical Report D2.1.2, Esprit Project 5365, 1992.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    G. Plotkin. A note on inductive generalization. In Machine Intelligence, volume 5. Edinburgh University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    J.R. Quinlan. Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1:81–106, 1983.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J.R. Quinlan. Learning logical definition from relations. Machine Learning, 5:239–266, 1990.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    C. Rouveirol. Extensions of inversion of resolution applied to theory completion. In S. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, pages 63–93. Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    C. Rouveirol. Working Notes of the Declarative Bias MLNet workshop. 1994. Catania.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Russell and B. Grosof. A sketch of autonomous learning using declarative bias. In P.B. Brazdil and K. Konolige, editors, Machine Learning, Meta-Reasoning and Logics, pages 19–54. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    C. Sammut and R. Banerji. Learning concepts by asking questions. In R.S. Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T.M. Mitchell, editors, Machine Learning: an artificial intelligence approach, volume 2, pages 167–192. Morgan Kaufmann, 1986.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ehud Y. Shapiro. Algorithmic Program Debugging. The MIT press, 1983.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    G. Shreiber, B. Wielinga, and J. Breuker. KADS: a Principled Approach to Knowledge-Based System Developpement. Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    A. Slodzian. Configuring decision tree learning algorithms with krest. Technical report, VUB, 1994.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    B.D. Smith and P.S. Rosembloom. Incremental non-backtracking focusing: A polynomialy bounded generalization algorithm for version space. In AAAI-90: proceedings of the ninth conference, pages 848–853. Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    L. Steels. Reusability and configuration of applications by non-programmers. Technical Report AI-memo 92-4, AI Lab. Free University of Bruxelles, 1992.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    L. Steels. The componential framework and its role in reusability. In David J-M., Krivine J-P., and Simmons R., editors, Second Generation Expert Systems. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    B. Tausend. Biases and their effects in inductive logic programming. In Springer Verlag, editor, Machine Learning: European Conference on Machine Learning-94, pages 431–434, 1994.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    B. Tausend. Representing biases for inductive logic programming. In Springer Verlag, editor, Machine Learning: European Conference on Machine Learning-94, pages 427–430, 1994.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    J. Thomas, J.G. Ganascia, and P. Laublet. Model-driven knowledge acquisition and knowledge-biased machine learning. In G. Tecuci, S. Kedar, and Y. Kodratoff, editors, Proceedings of the IJCAI-93 Workshop on Machine Learning and Knowledge Acquisition, pages 220–235, 1993.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    P.E. Utgoff. Shift of bias for inductive concept-learning. In R.S Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T.M. Mitchell, editors, Machine Learning: an artificial intelligence approach. Morgan Kaufmann, 1986.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    W. Van de Velde. Invited talk: Toward a toolkit for knowledge engineering. Journées Acquisition des Connaissances, 1994.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    W. Van de Velde and A. Aamodt. Machine learning issues in commonkads, 1992.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    B. Wielinga, W. Van de Velde, G. Shreiber, and D. Akkermans. The commonkads framework for knowledge modelling. In AAAI Knowledge Acquisition Workshop 1992, Banff, Canada, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Recherche en Informatique, URA 410 du CNRS, Équipe Inférence et ApprentissageUniversité Paris SudOrsayFrance
  2. 2.ILOGGentilly CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations