Advertisement

Prolog, refinements and RLGG's

  • Claude Sammut
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1446)

Abstract

Cohen's [1] refinement rules provide a flexible mechanism for introducing intentional background knowledge in an ILP system. Whereas Cohen used a limited second order theorem prover to imple- ment the rule interpreter, we extend the method to use a full Prolog interpreter. This makes the introduction of more complex background knowledge possible. Although refinement rules have been used to gener- ate literals for a general-to-specific search, we show how they can also be used as filters to reduce the number of literals in an RLGG algorithm. Each literal constructed by the LGG is tested against the refinement rules and only admitted if a refinement rule has been satisfied.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen, W.: Learning to classify English text with ILP methods. In L. de Raedt (Eds.), Advances in Inductive Logic programming. IOS Press (1996) 124–143Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Muggleton, S., Feng, C.: Efficient induction of logic programs. In First Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory. Omsha, Tokyo (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muggleton, S.: Inverse Entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing 13 (1995) 245–286.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Page, C. D., Frisch, A. M.: Generalization and Learnability: A study of constrained atoms. In S. Muggleton (Eds.): Inductive Logic Programming. Academic Press (1992) 29–61Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plotkin, G. D.: A further note on inductive generalization. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie (Eds.): Machine Intelligence 6. Elsevier, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Quinlan, J. R.: Learning Logical Definitions from Relations. Machine Learning 5 (1990) 239–266Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rouveirol, C., Puget, J.-F.: Beyond Inversion of Resolution. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sammut, C. A., Banerji, R. B.: Learning Concepts by Asking Questions. In R. S. Michalski Carbonell, J.G. and Mitchell, T.M. (Eds.): Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol 2. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, California (1986) 167–192Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sammut, C.: Using background knowledge to build multistrategy learners. Machine Learning 27 (1997) 241–257Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Srinivasan, A., Camacho, R.: Experiments in numerical reasoning with Inductive Logic Programming. Journal of Logic Programming (in press)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zrimec, T., Sammut, C.A.: A Medical Image Understanding System. Engineering applications of Artificial Intelligence 10(1) (1997) 31–39.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claude Sammut
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations