Abstract
Many state-of-the-art ILP systems require large numbers of negative examples to avoid overgeneralization. This is a considerable disadvantage for many ILP applications, namely inductive program synthesis where relativelly small and sparse example sets are a more realistic scenario. Integrity constraints are first order clauses that can play the role of negative examples in an inductive process. One integrity constraint can replace a long list of ground negative examples. However, checking the consistency of a program with a set of integrity constraints usually involves heavy theorem-proving. We propose an efficient constraint satisfaction algorithm that applies to a wide variety of useful integrity constraints and uses a Monte Carlo strategy. It looks for inconsistencies by random generation of queries to the program. This method allows the use of integrity constraints instead of (or together with) negative examples. As a consequence programs to induce can be specified more rapidly by the user and the ILP system tends to obtain more accurate definitions. Average running times are not greatly affected by the use of integrity constraints compared to ground negative examples.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aha, D. W., Lapointe, S., Ling, C. X., Matwin S (1994): Inverting Implication with Small Training Sets. Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, ECML-94, ed. F. Bergadano and L. De Raedt, Springer Verlag.
Bergadano, F., Gunneti, D. and Trinchero, U. (1993): The Difficulties of Learning Logic Programs with Cut. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 1, 91–107, AI Access Foundation and Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Brazdil, P., Jorge, A. (1994): Learning by Refining Algorithm Sketches. Proceedings of ECAI-94, T. Cohn (ed.). Wiley.
De Raedt, L., Lavrac, N., Dzeroski, S. (1993): Multiple Predicate Learning. Proceedings of IJCAI-93. Morgan-Kaufmann.
De Raedt, L. (1992): Interactive Theory Revision:An Inductive Logic Programming Approach. Academic Press.
Deville, Y., Lau, K.,(1994): Logic Program Synthesis. The Journal of Logic Programming, special issue Ten Years of Logic Programming, volumes 19,20, May/July 1994.
Hogger, C. J. (1990): Essentials of Logic Programming. Graduate texts in computer science series, Oxford University Press.
Idestam-Almquist P (1996) Efficient Induction of Recursive Definitions by Efficient Analysis of Saturations. Advances in Inductive Logic Programming, Ed. by Luc De Raedt, IOS Press/Ohmsha.
Jorge, A. and Brazdil, P. (1996): Architecture for Iterative Learning of Recursive Definitions. Advances in Inductive Logic Programming, Ed. by Luc De Raedt, IOS Press/Ohmsha.
Lavrac, N. and Dzeroski, S. (1994): Inductive Logic Programming, Techniques and Applications. Ellis Horwood.
Manthey, R. and Bry, F. (1988): SATCHMO: a theorem prover implemented in Prolog. Proceedings of CADE 88 (9th Conference on Automated Deduction), SpringerVerlag.
Muggleton, S., De Raedt, L., (1994): Inductive Logic Programming. The Journal of Logic Programming. Special issue Ten Years of Logic Programming, volumes 19,20, May/July 1994.
Muggleton, S. (1995): Stochastic Logic Programs. Advances in Inductive Logic Programming, Ed. by Luc De Raedt, IOS Press/Ohmsha.
Muggleton, S. (1993): Inductive Logic Programming: derivations, successes and shortcomings. Proceedings of ECML-93, Springer-Verlag.
Quinlan, J.R. (1990): Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning 5, 239–266.
Quinlan, J.R. (1993): FOIL: A Midterm Report. Proceedings of ECML-93, Springer-Verlag.
Quinlan, J.R. (1996): Learning First-Order Definitions of Functions. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, to appear.
Sadri, F., Kowalski, R. (1988): A Theorem Proving Approach to Database Integrity in Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, ed. by Jack Minker, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Shapiro, E. Y., (1982) Algorithmic Program Debugging, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Zelle J M, Mooney R J, Konvisser J B, (1994): Combining Top-down and Bottomup Techniques in Inductive Logic Programming. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning ML-94, Morgan-Kaufmarm.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Jorge, A., Brazdil, P.B. (1997). Integrity constraints in ILP using a Monte Carlo approach. In: Muggleton, S. (eds) Inductive Logic Programming. ILP 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1314. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63494-0_58
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63494-0_58
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63494-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69583-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive