Advertisement

Avoiding non-termination when learning logic programs: A case study with FOIL and FOCL

  • Giovanni Semeraro
  • Floriana Esposito
  • Donato Malerba
  • Clifford Brunk
  • Michael Pazzani
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 883)

Abstract

Many systems that learn logic programs from examples adopt θ-subsumption as model of generalization and refer to Plotkin's framework in order to define their search space. However, they seldom take into account the fact that the lattice defined by Plotkin is a set of equivalence classes rather than simple clauses. This may lead to non-terminating learning processes, since the search gets stuck within an equivalence class, which contains an infinite number of clauses.

In the paper, we present a task that cannot be solved by two well-known systems that learn logic programs, FOIL and FOCL. The failure is explained on the ground of the previous consideration about the search space. This task can be solved by adopting a weaker, but more mechanizable and manageable, model of generalization, called θ-subsumption under object identity (θOI-subsumption). Such a solution has been implemented in a new version of FOCL, called FOCL-OI.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bell, S., and Weber, S., On the close logical relationship between FOIL and the frameworks of Helft and Plotkin, Proceedings of The Third Int'l Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming ILP'93, Bled, Slovenia, 1–10, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bossu, G., and Siegel, P., Saturation, Nonmonotonic Reasoning and the Closed-World Assumption, Artificial Intelligence, 25, 13–63, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buntine, W., Generalized Subsumption and Its Applications to Induction and Redundancy, Artificial Intelligence, 36, 149–176, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark, K.L., Negation as failure, in Logic and Databases, H. Gallaire and J. Minker (Eds.), 293–321, Plenum Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Raedt, L., Interactive Theory Revision, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esposito, F., Malerba, D., and Semeraro, G., Specialization in Incremental Learning: The Negation Operator, Proceed. of the AAAI-93 Spring Symp. Series on ”Training Issues in Incremental Learning”, Stanford, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Esposito, F., Malerba, D., Semeraro, G., and Pazzani, M., A Machine Learning Approach To Document Understanding, Proceed. of the 2nd Int'l Workshop on Multistrategy Learning MSL-93, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, 276–292, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esposito, F., Malerba, D., and Semeraro, G., Negation as a Specializing Operator, in Advances in Artificial Intelligence — Proceedings of the Third Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence AI*IA 93, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 728, P. Torasso (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, Turin, Italy, 166–177, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esposito, F., Malerba, D., Semeraro, G., Brunk, C. and Pazzani, M., Traps and Pitfalls when Learning Logical Definitions, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Charlotte, North Carolina, 1994 (to appear)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garey, M.R., and Johnson, D.S., Computers and Intractability, Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 1979.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Genesereth, M.R., and Nilsson, N.J., Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, Palo Alto, CA, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Helft, N., Inductive Generalization: A Logical Framework, in Progress in Machine Learning — Proceedings of EWSL 87, I. Bratko & N. Lavrac (Eds.), Sigma Press, Bled, Yugoslavia, 149–157, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Idestam-Almquist, P., Generalization under Implication by Recursive Antiunification, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Machine Learning, Amherst, MA, 151–158, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kietz, J.U., A Comparative Study Of Structural Most Specific Generalizations Used In Machine Learning, in Logical Approaches to Machine Learning — Workshop Notes: 10th ECAI, Vienna, Austria, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knight, K., Unification: A Multidisciplinary Survey, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol.21, No.1, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larson, J.B., Inductive Inference in the Variable Valued Predicate Logic System VL21: Methodology and Computer Implementation, Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, May 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lloyd, J.W., Foundations of Logic Programming, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malerba, D., Document Understanding: A Machine Learning Approach, Technical Report, Esprit Project 5203 INTREPID, March 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manago, M., and Kodratoff, Y., Model-Driven Learning of Disjunctive Concepts, in Progress in Machine Learning — Proceedings of EWSL 87, I. Bratko & N. Lavrac (Eds.), Sigma Press, Bled, Yugoslavia, 183–198, 1987.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Michalski, R.S., A Theory and Methodology of Inductive Learning, Artificial Intelligence, 20, 111–161, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muggleton, S., Inductive Logic Programming, New Generation Computing, 8(4), 295–318, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Niblett, T., A study of generalization in Logic Programs, Proceedings of the Third European Working Session on Learning, Pitman, London, 131–138, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nienhuys-Cheng, S.H., van der Laag, P.R.J., van der Torre, L.W.N., Constructing refinement operators by decomposing logical implication, in Advances in Artificial Intelligence — Proceedings of the Third Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence APIA 93, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 728, P. Torasso (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, Turin, Italy, 178–189, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pazzani, M., and Kibler, D., The utility of knowledge in inductive learning, Machine Learning 9, 1, 57–94, 1992.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Plotkin, G.D., A Note on Inductive Generalization, in Machine Intelligence 5, B. Meltzer and D. Michie (Eds.), 153–163, Edinburgh University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Quinlan, J. R., Learning Logical Definitions from Relations, Machine Learning 5, 3, 239–266, 1990.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quinlan, J. R., Determinate Literals in Inductive Logic Programming, Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sydney, Australia, 746–750, 1991.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reiter, R., Equality and domain closure in first order databases, Journal of ACM, 27, 235–249, 1980.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rissanen, J., A universal prior for integers and estimation by minimum description length, Annals of Statistics, 11, 1, 416–431, 1983.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Semeraro, G., Brunk, C.A., and Pazzani M.J., Traps and Pitfalls when Learning Logical Theories: A Case Study with FOIL and FOCL, Technical Report 93-33, Department of Information and Computer Science, University of California, Irvine, California, July 26, 1993.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silverstein, G., and Pazzani, M., Relational clichés: constraining constructive induction during relational learning, Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Machine Learning, Evanston, Illinois, 203–207, 1991.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    VanLehn, K., Efficient Specialization of Relational Concepts, Machine Learning 4, 1, 99–106, 1989.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vere, S.A., Multilevel Counterfactuals for Generalizations of Relational Concepts and Productions, Artificial Intelligence, 14, 139–164, 1980.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Winston, P.H., Learning Structural Descriptions from Examples, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, January 1970.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wirth, R., and O'Rorke, P., Constraints on Predicate Invention, Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Machine Learning, Evanston, Illinois, 457–461, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Semeraro
    • 1
  • Floriana Esposito
    • 1
  • Donato Malerba
    • 1
  • Clifford Brunk
    • 2
  • Michael Pazzani
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversitá degli Studi di BariBariItaly
  2. 2.Department of Information and Computer ScienceUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations