Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advantages of decision lists and implicit negatives in Inductive Logic Programming

  • Regular Papers
  • Published:
New Generation Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper demonstrates the capabilities offoidl, an inductive logic programming (ILP) system whose distinguishing characteristics are the ability to produce first-order decision lists, the use of an output completeness assumption as a substitute for negative examples, and the use originally motivated by the problem of learning to generate the past tense of English verbs; however, this paper demonstrates its superior performance on two different sets of benchmark ILP problems. Tests on the finite element mesh design problem show thatfoidl’s decision lists enable it to produce generally more accurate results than a range of methods previously applied to this problem. Tests with a selection of list-processing problems from Bratko’s introductory Prolog text demonstrate that the combination of implicit negatives and intensionality allowfoidl to learn correct programs from far fewer examples thanfoil.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aha, D. W., Lapointe, S., Ling, C. X., and Matwin, S., “Learning Recursive Relations with Randomly Selected Small Training Sets”, inProceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning, New Brunswick, NJ, pp.12–18, 1994.

  2. Bergadano F. and Gunetti, D., “An Interactive System to Learn Functional Logic Programs”, inProceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambery, France, pp. 1044–1049, 1993.

  3. Bergadano, F., Gunetti, D., and Trinchero, U., “The Difficulties of Learning Logic Programs with Cut,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1, pp. 91–107, 1993.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bloom, P., “Overview: Controversies in Language Acquisition,” inLanguage Acquisition: Core Readings (Bloom, P., ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA pp. 5–48, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bratko, I.,Prolog Programming for Artificial Intelligence, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Califf, M. E. and Mooney, R., “Applying ILP-Based Techniques to Natural Language Information Extraction: An Experiment in Relational Learning”, inWorking Notes of the IJCAI-97 Workshop on Frontiers in Inductive Logic Programming, 1997.

  7. Cameron-Jones, R. M. and Quinlan, J. R., “Avoiding Pitfalls When Learning Recursive Theories”, inProceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambery, France, pp. 1050–1055, 1993.

  8. Cameron-Jones, R. M. and Quinlan, J. R., “Efficient Top-down Induction of Logic Programs,”SIGART Bulletin, 5, 1, pp. 33–42, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clark, P. and Niblett, T., “The CN2 Induction Algorithm,”Machine Learning, 3, pp. 261–284, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen, W. W., “Pac-Learning a Restricted Class of Recursive Logic Programs,” inProceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, D. C., pp. 86–92, 1993.

  11. De Raedt, L. and Bruynooghe, M., “A Theory of Clausal Discovery”, inProceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambery, France, pp. 1058–1063, 1993.

  12. Dolsak, B. and Muggleton, S., “The Application of Inductive Logic Programming to Finite-Element Mesh Design,” inInductive Logic Programming (Muggleton, S., ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 453–472, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Estlin, T. A. and Mooney, R., “Learning to Improve Both Efficiency and Quality of Planning” inProceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1227–1232, 1997.

  14. Inuzaka, N., Kamo, M., Ishii, N., Seki, H., and Itoh, H., “Top-down Induction of Logic Programs from Incomplete Samples,” inProceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming, pp. 119–136, 1996.

  15. Jorge, A. and Brazdil, P., “Architecture for Iterative Learning of Recursive Definitions,” inAdvances in Inductive Logic Programming (De Raedt, L., ed.), IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Karalič, A., “First Order Regression,”Ph. D. thesis, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lapointe, S. and Matwin, S., “Sub-Unification: A Tool for Efficient Induction of Recursive Programs,” inProceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Machine Learning, Aberdeen, Scotland, pp. 273–281, 1992.

  18. Lavrač, N. and Džeroski, S.,Inductive Logic Programming: Techniques and Applications, Ellis Horwood, 1994.

  19. Mooney, R. J., “Inductive Logic Programming for Natural-Language Processing,” inProceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming, pp. 205–224, 1996.

  20. Mooney, R. J. and Califf, M. E., “Induction of First-Order Decision Lists: Results on Learning the Past Tense of English Verbs,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 3, pp. 1–24, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Muggleton, S. and Feng, C., “Efficient Induction of Logic Programs,” inProceedings of the First Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, Tokyo, Japan, Ohmsha, 1990.

  22. Muggleton, S. H. (ed.),Inductive Logic Programming, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1992.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Muggleton, S., “Inverse Entailment and Progol,”New Generation Computing, 13, pp. 245–286, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Quinlan, J. R., “Determinate Literals in Inductive Logic Programming”, inProceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Machine Learning, Evanston, IL, 1991.

  25. Quinlan, J. R., “Learning First-Order Definitions of Functions,”Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 5, pp. 139–161, 1996.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Quinlan, J. R. and Cameron-Jones, R. M., “FOIL: A Midterm Report,” inProceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, Vienna, pp. 3–20, 1993.

  27. Quinlan, J., “Learning Logical Definitions from Relations,”Machine Learning, 5, 3, pp. 239–266, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Richards, B. L. and Mooney, R. J., “Automated Refinement of First-Order Horn-Clause Domain Theories,”Machine Learning, 19, 2, pp. 95–131, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rivest, R. L., “Learning Decision Lists,”Machine Learning, 2, 3, pp. 229–246, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rumelhart, D. E. and McClelland, J., “On Learning the Past Tense of English Verbs,” inParallel Distributed Processing, Vol. II (Rumelhart, D. E. and McClelland, J. L., eds.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 216–271, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Webb, G. I. and Brkič, N., “Learning Decision Lists by Prepending Inferred Rules”, inProceedings of the Australian Workshop on Machine Learning and Hybrid Systems, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 6–10, 1993.

  32. Zelle, J. M., “Using Inductive Logic Programming to Automate the Construction of Natural Language Parsers,”Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1995. Also appears asTechnical Report, AI 96-249, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zelle, J. M. and Mooney, R. J., “Combining FOIL and EBG to Speed-up Logic Programs,” inProceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambery, France, pp. 1106–1111, 1993.

  34. Zelle, J. M. and Mooney, R. J., “Combining Top-down and Bottom-up Methods in Inductive Logic Programming,” inProceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 343–351, 1994.

  35. Zelle, J. M. and Mooney, R. J., “Learning to Parse Database Queries Using Inductive Logic Programming,” inProceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Portland, OR, 1996.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, 78712, Austin, TX, USA

    Mary Elaine Califf & Raymond J. Mooney

Authors
  1. Mary Elaine Califf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond J. Mooney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This research was supported by a fellowship from AT&T awarded to the first author and by the National Science Foundation under grant IRI-9310819.

Mary Elaine Califf: She is currently pursuing her doctorate in Computer Science at the University of Texas at Austin where she is supported by a fellowship from AT&T. Her research interests include natural language understanding, particularly using machine learning methods to build practical natural language understanding systems such as information extraction systems, and inductive logic programming.

Raymond Joseph Mooney: He is an Associate Professor of Computer Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin. He recerived his Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1988. His current research interests include applying machine to natural language understanding, inductive logic programming, knowledge-base and theory refinement, learning for planning, and learning for recommender systems. He serves on the editorial boards of the journalNew Generation Computing, theMachine Learning journal, theJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research, and the journalApplied Intelligence.

About this article

Cite this article

Califf, M.E., Mooney, R.J. Advantages of decision lists and implicit negatives in Inductive Logic Programming. New Gener Comput 16, 263–281 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037482

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037482

Keywords

Search

Navigation