Inductive logic program synthesis with DIALOGS

  • Pierre Flener
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1314)


DIALOGS (Dialogue-based Inductive and Abductive LOGic program Synthesizer) is a schema-guided synthesizer of recursive logic programs; it takes the initiative and queries a (possibly computationally naive) specifier for evidence in her/his conceptual language. The specifier must know the answers to such simple queries, because otherwise s/he wouldn't even feel the need for the synthesized program. DIALOGS can be used by any learner (including itself) that detects, or merely conjectures, the necessity of invention of a new predicate. Due to its foundation on a powerful codification of a “recursion-theory” (by means of the template and constraints of a divide-and-conquer schema), DIALOGS needs very little evidence and is very fast.


Logic Program Auxiliary Parameter Predicate Variable Recursive Program Induction Parameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Angluin, D.: Queries and concept learning. Machine Learning 2(4):319–342, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergadano, F., Gunetti, D.: Learning clauses by tracing derivations. In S. Wrobel (ed), Proc. of ILP'94, pp. 11–29. GMD-Studien Nr. 237, Sankt Augustin, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biermann, A.W.: Dealing with search. In A.W. Biermami, G. Guiho, and Y. Kodratoff (eds), Automatic Program Construction Techniques, pp. 375–392. Macmillan, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boström, H., Idestam-Almquist, P.: Specialization of logic programs by pruning SLD-trees. In S. Wrobel (ed), Proc. of ILP'94, pp. 31–48. GMD-Studien Nr. 237, Sankt Augustin, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen, W.C.: Compiling prior knowledge into an explicit bias. In Proc. of ICML'92, pages 102–110. Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Raedt, L., Bruynooghe, M.: Belief updating from integrity constraints and queries. Artificial Intelligence 53(2-3):291–307, February 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Raedt, L., Bruynooghe, M.: Interactive concept learning and constructive induction by analogy. Machine Learning 8:107–150, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erdem, E.: An MSG Method for Inductive Logic Program Synthesis. Senior Project Final Report, Bilkent University, Ankara (Turkey), May 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flener, P.: Logic Program Synthesis from Incomplete Information. Kluwer, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flener, P.: Predicate Invention in Inductive Program Synthesis. TR BU-LEIS-9509, Bilkent University, Ankara (Turkey), 1995. Submitted.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flener, P.: Synthesis of Logic Algorithm Schemata. TR BU-LEIS-96xx, Bilkent University, Ankara (Turkey), 1996. Update of TR BU-CEIS-9502. In preparation.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flener, P., Deville, Y.: Logic program synthesis from incomplete specifications. Journal of Symbolic Computation 15(5–6):775–805, May/June 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Flener, P., Popelinsky, L.: On the use of inductive reasoning in program synthesis. In L. Fribourg and F. Turini (eds), Proc. of META/LOPSTR'94. LNCS 883:69–87, Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flener, P., Deville, Y.: Logic Program Transformation through Generalization Schemata. TR BU-CEIS-96yy, Bilkent University, Ankara (Turkey), 1996. In preparation. Extended abstract in M. Proietti (ed), Proc. of LOPSTR'95. LNCS 1048:171–173, Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamfelt, A., Fischer-Nilsson, J.: Inductive metalogic programming. In S. Wrobel (ed), Proc. of ILP'94, pp. 85–96. GMD-Studien Nr. 237, Sankt Augustin, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kietz, J.U., Wrobel, S.: Controlling the complexity of learning in logic through syntactic and task-oriented models. In S. Muggleton (ed), Inductive Logic Programming, pp. 335–359. Volume APIC-38, Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lapointe, S., Ling, C., Matwin, S.: Constructive inductive logic programming. In S. ]Muggleton (ed), Proc. of ILP'93, pp. 255–264. TR IJS-DP-6707, J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana (Slovenia), 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muggleton, S., Buntine, W.: Machine invention of first-order predicates by inverting resolution. In Proc. of ICML'88, pages 339–352. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A note on inductive generalization. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds), Machine Intelligence 5:153–163. Edinburgh University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stahl, I.: Predicate invention in ILP: An overview. TR 1993/06, Fakultät Informatik, Universität Stuttgart (Germany), 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sterling, L.S., Kirschenbaum, M.: Applying techniques to skeletons. In J.-M. Jacquet (ed), Constructing Logic Programs, pp. 127–140. John Wiley, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tinkham, N.L.: Induction of Schemata for Program Synthesis. Ph.D. Thesis, Duke University, Durham (NC, USA), 1990. 199–211Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Flener
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering and Information Science Faculty of EngineeringBilkent UniversityBilkent, AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations