Strongly typed inductive concept learning
In this paper we argue that the use of a language with a type system, together with higher-order facilities and functions, provides a suitable basis for knowledge representation in inductive concept learning and, in particular, illu minates the relationship between attribute-value learning and inductive logic programming (ILP). Individuals are represented by closed terms: tuples of constants in the case of attribute-value learning; arbitrarily complex terms in the case of ILP. To illustrate the point, we take some learning tasks from the machine learning and ILP literature and represent them in Escher, a typed, higher-order, functional logic programming language being developed at the University of Bristol. We argue that the use of a type system provides better ways to discard meaningless hypotheses on syntactic grounds and encompasses many ad hoc approaches to declarative bias.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.L. De Raedt & W. Van Laer. Inductive constraint logic. Proc. 6th Int. Workshop on Algorithmic Learning Theory, LNAI 997, pp.80–94, 1995.Google Scholar
- 2.L. De Raedt & L. Dehaspe. Clausal Discovery. Machine Learning 26(2/3):99–146, 1997.Google Scholar
- 3.J.W. Lloyd. Programming in an Integrated Functional and Logic Language. Journal of Functional and Logic Programming, 1998 (to appear).Google Scholar
- 4.T.M. Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
- 5.A. Srinivasan, S. Muggleton, R. King & M. Sternberg. Mutagenesis: ILP experiments in a non-determinate biological domain. Proc. 4th Inductive Logic Programming Workshop, GMD-Studien 237, 1994.Google Scholar