Skip to main content

Stochastic propositionalization of non-determinate background knowledge

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Inductive Logic Programming (ILP 1998)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1446))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Both propositional and relational learning algorithms require a good representation to perform well in practice. Usually such a representation is either engineered manually by domain experts or derived automatically by means of so-called constructive induction. Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) algorithms put a somewhat less burden on the data engineering effort as they allow for a structured, relational representation of background knowledge. In chemical and engineering domains, a common representational device for graph-like structures are so-called non-determinate relations. Manually engineered features in such domains typically test for or count occurrences of specific substructures having specific properties. However, representations containing non-determinate relations pose a serious efficiency problem for most standard ILP algorithms. Therefore, we have devised a stochastic algorithm to automatically derive features from non-determinate background knowledge. The algorithm conducts a top-down search for first-order clauses, where each clause represents a binary feature. These features are used instead of the non-determinate relations in a subsequent induction step. In contrast to comparable algorithms search is not class-blind and there are no arbitrary size restrictions imposed on candidate clauses. An empirical investigation in three chemical domains supports the validity and usefulness of the proposed algorithm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. H. Blockeel and L. DeRaedt. Top-down induction of logical decision trees. Technical Report CW 247Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Blum. Learning boolean functions in an infinite attribute space. Machine Learning, 9(4), 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  3. W.W. Cohen. Pac-learning nondeterminate clauses. In Proc. Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  4. W.W. Cohen. Learning trees and rules with set-valued features. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-96), pages 709–716, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D.J. Cook and L.B. Holder. Substructure discovery using minimum description length and background knowledge. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1:231–255, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Džeroski and B. Kompare, 1995. Personal Communication.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. Geibel and F. Wysotzki. Relational learning with decision trees. In Proc. Twelfth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-96), pages 428–432, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. Giordana, L. Saitta, and F. Zini. Learning disjunctive concepts by means of genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 96–104, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R.D. King and A. Srinivasan. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity bioassays from molecular structure using inductive logic programming. Environmental Health Perspectives, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Kovačič. MILP: a stochastic approach to Inductive Logic Programming. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-94), GMD-Studien Nr. 237, pages 123–138, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. N. Lavrac and S. Džeroski. Inductive Logic Programming. Ellis Harwood, Chichester, UK, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. Muggleton. Inverse Entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, 13:245–286, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J.R. Quinlan. Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, 5:239–266, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J.R. Quinlan. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J.R. Quinlan. The minimum description length principle and categorical theories. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning, San Mateo, CA, 1994. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. Rissanen. Modeling by shortest data description. Automatica, 14:465–471, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. Sebag and C. Rouveirol. Tractable induction and classification in first order logic via stochastic matching. In Proc. Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97), pages 888–893, San Mateo, CA, 1997. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  18. G. Silverstein and M.J. Pazzani. Relational clichés: Constraining constructive induction during relational learning. In L.A. Birnbaum and G.C. Collins, editors, Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop (ML91), pages 203–207, San Mateo, CA, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  19. A. Srinivasan and R.D. King. Feature construction with Inductive Logic Programming: a study of quantitative predictions of chemical activity aided by structural attributes. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-96), 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  20. A. Srinivasan, S. Muggleton, and R.D. King. Comparing the use of background knowledge by Inductive Logic Programming systems. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-95), pages 199–230. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Srinivasan, S. Muggleton, R.D. King, and M. Sternberg. Mutagenesis: ILP experiments in a non-determinate biological domain. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-94), GMD-Studien Nr. 237, pages 217–232, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. Turney. Low size-complexity Inductive Logic Programming: the East-West challenge considered as a problem in cost-sensitive classification. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-95), pages 247–263. Katholieke Universiteit Leuvenn, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J.D. Zucker and J.G. Ganascia. Representation changes for efficient learning in structural domains. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 543–551, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

David Page

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kramer, S., Pfahringer, B., Helma, C. (1998). Stochastic propositionalization of non-determinate background knowledge. In: Page, D. (eds) Inductive Logic Programming. ILP 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1446. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0027312

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0027312

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64738-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69059-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics