Automatic Induction of First-Order Logic Descriptors Type Domains from Observations
Successful application of Machine Learning to certain real-world situations sometimes requires to take into account relations among objects. Inductive Logic Programming, being based on First-Order Logic as a representation language, provides a suitable learning framework to be adopted in these cases. However, the intrinsic complexity of this framework, added to the complexity of the specific application context, often requires pure induction to be supported by various kinds of meta-information on the domain itself and/or on its representation in order to prune the search space of all possible definitions. Indeed, avoiding the exploration of paths that do not lead to any correct solution can greatly reduce computational times, and hence becomes a critical issue for the performance of the whole learning process. In the current practice, providing such information is often in charge of the human expert. It is also a difficult and error-prone activity, in which mistakes are highly probable because of a number of factors. This makes it desirable to develop procedures that can automatically generate such information starting from the same observations that are input to the learning process.
This paper focuses on a specific kind of meta-information: the types used in the description language and their related domains. Indeed, many learning systems known in the literature are able to exploit (and sometimes require) such a kind of knowledge to improve their performance. An algorithm is proposed to automatically identify types from observations, and detailed examples of its behaviour are given. An evaluation of its performance in domains with different characteristics is reported, and its robustness with respect to incomplete observations is studied.
KeywordsDescription Languages Knowledge Acquisition
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Aha, D.W.: Incremental constructive induction: An instance-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Machine Learning, pp. 117–121. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
- 2.Blockeel, H., De Raedt, L.: Inductive database design. In: Michalewicz, M., Raś, Z.W. (eds.) ISMIS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1079, pp. 376–385. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
- 5.de Velde, W.V.: IDL, or Taming the Multiplexer Problem.In: Proceedings of the 4th European Working Session on Learning. Pittman (1989)Google Scholar
- 7.Flach, P.A., Lachiche, N.: Cooking up integrity constraints with primus. Preliminary Report CSTR-97-009, University of Bristol - Department of Computer Science (December 1997)Google Scholar
- 9.Kakas, A., Riguzzi, F.: Abductive concept learning. New Generation Computing (1999)Google Scholar
- 10.McCreath, E., Sharma, A.: Extraction of meta-knowledge to restrict the hypothesis space for ilp systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 78–82. World Scientific, Singapore (1995)Google Scholar
- 11.Michalski, R.S.: Inferential theory of learning. developing foundations for multistrategy learning. In: Michalski, R.S., Tecuci, G. (eds.) Machine Learning. A Multistrategy Approach, vol. IV, pp. 3–61. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1994)Google Scholar
- 12.Morik, K.: Balanced cooperative modeling. Machine Learning 11, 217–235 (1993)Google Scholar
- 13.Muggleton, S.: Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, Special issue on Inductive Logic Programming 13(3/4), 245–286 (1995)Google Scholar
- 14.Shapiro, E.: Inductive inference of theories from facts. Technical Report 192, Computer Science Department, Yale University (1981)Google Scholar