Advertisement

Logic-Based Machine Learning

  • Stephen Muggleton
  • Flaviu Marginean
Chapter
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 597)

Abstract

The last three decades has seen the development of Computational Logic techniques within Artificial Intelligence. This has led to the development of the subject of Logic Programming (LP), which can be viewed as a key part of Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence. The subtopic of LP concerned with Machine Learning is known as “Inductive Logic Programming” (ILP), which again can be broadened to Logic-Based Machine Learning by dropping Horn clause restrictions. ILP has its roots in the ground-breaking research of Gordon Plotkin and Ehud Shapiro. This paper provides a brief survey of the state of ILP applications, theory and techniques.

Keywords

Inductive logic programming machine learning scientific discovery protein prediction learning of natural language 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bratko, I. and Muggleton, S. (1995). Applications of inductive logic programming. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brenner, S., Chothia, C., Hubbard, T., and Murzin, A. (1996). Understanding protein structure: using scop for fold interpretation. Methods in Enzymology, 266:635–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Briscoe, T. and Carroll, J. (1993). Generalized probabilistic lr parsing of natural language (corpora) with unification-based grammars. Computational Linguistics, 19(1):25–59.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, M. (1996). A new statistical parser based on bigram lexical dependencies. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 184–191, Santa Cruz, California, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cussens, J., Page, D., Muggleton, S., and Srinivasan, A. (1997). Using Inductive Logic Programming for Natural Logic Processing. In Daelemans, W., Weijters, T., and van der Bosch, A., editors, ECML’97 - Workshop Notes on Empirical Learning of Natural Language Tasks, pages 25–34, Prague. University of Economics. Invited keynote paper.Google Scholar
  6. Džeroski, S. and Erjavec, T. (1997). Induction of Slovene nominal paradigms. In Lavrač, N. and Džeroski, S., editors, Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming, pages 141–148. LNAI 1297, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Finn, P., Muggleton, S., Page, D., and Srinivasan, A. (1998). Pharmacophore discovery using the inductive logic programming system Progol. Machine Learning, 30:241–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M. E., Appelt, D. E., and Martin, P. (1993). Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 63:69–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Khan, K., Muggleton, S., and Parson, R. (1998). Repeat learning using predicate invention. In Page, C., editor, Proc. of the 8th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-98), LNAI 1446, pages 165–174, Berlin. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. King, R., Muggleton, S., Lewis, R., and Sternberg, M. (1992). Drug design by machine learning: The use of inductive logic programming to model the structure-activity relationships of trimethoprim analogues binding to dihydrofolate reductase. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89(23):11322–11326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. King, R., Muggleton, S., Srinivasan, A., and Sternberg, M. (1996). Structure-activity relationships derived by machine learning: the use of atoms and their bond connectives to predict mutagenicity by inductive logic programming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93:438–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kowalski, R. (1980). Logic for Problem Solving. North Holland.Google Scholar
  13. Krotov, A., Gaizauskas, R., Hepple, M., and Wilks, Y. (1997). Compacting the Penn Treebank Grammar. Proceedings of the COLING-ACL′98 Joint Conference, pages 699–703, Association for Computational Linguistics. Also: Research Memorandum CS-97-04, Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
  14. Krotov, A., Gaizauskas, R., and Wilks, Y. (1994). Acquiring a stochastic context-free grammar from the Penn Treebank. In Proc. of the Third Conference on the Cognitive Science of Natural Language Processing.Google Scholar
  15. Ling, C. (1994). Learning the past tense of english verbs: the symbolic pattern associators vs. connectionist models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1:209–229.Google Scholar
  16. Lloyd, J. (1987). Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Second edition.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Magerman, D. (1995). Statistical decision-tree models for parsing. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 276–283, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  18. McCarthy, J. (1959). Programs with commonsense. In Mechanisation of thought processes, volume 1. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, pages 75–91, London. Reprinted (with an added section on ‘Situations, Actions and Causal Laws’) in Semantic Information Processing, ed. M. Minsky (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (1963)).Google Scholar
  19. Mooney, R. (1997). Inductive logic programming for natural language processing. In Muggleton, S., editor, Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming, pages 3–21. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. LNAI 1314.Google Scholar
  20. Mooney, R. and Califf, M. (1995). Induction of first-order decision lists: Results on learning the past tense of english verbs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 3:1–24.Google Scholar
  21. Muggleton, S. (1991). Inductive logic programming. New Generation Computing, 8(4):295–318.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Muggleton, S. (1994a). Bayesian inductive logic programming. In Cohen, W. and Hirsh, H., editors, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Machine Learning Conference, pages 371–379, San Mateo, CA. Morgan-Kaufmann. Keynote presentation.Google Scholar
  23. Muggleton, S. (1994b). Bayesian inductive logic programming. In Warmuth, M., editor, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM Conference on Computational Learning Theory, pages 3–11, New York. ACM Press. Keynote presentation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muggleton, S. (1995). Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, 13:245–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muggleton, S. (1998). Completing inverse entailment. In Page, C., editor, Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-98), LNAI 1446, pages 245–249. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  26. Muggleton, S. (2000). Learning from positive data. Machine Learning. Accepted subject to revision.Google Scholar
  27. Muggleton, S. and Bain, M. (1999). Analogical prediction. In Proc. of the 9th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-99), pages 234–246, Berlin. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Muggleton, S. and Feng, C. (1992). Efficient induction of logic programs. In Muggleton, S., editor, Inductive Logic Programming, pages 281–298. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  29. Muggleton, S., King, R., and Sternberg, M. (1992). Protein secondary structure prediction using logic-based machine learning. Protein Engineering, 5(7):647–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Muggleton, S. and De Raedt, L. (1994). Inductive logic programming: Theory and methods. Journal of Logic Programming, 19,20:629–679. ftp://ftp.cs.york.ac.uk/pub/MLGROUP/Papers/lpj.ps.gz MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nienhuys-Cheng, S.-H. and de Wolf, R. (1997). Foundations of Inductive Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. LNAI 1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Plotkin, G. (1971). Automatic Methods of Inductive Inference. PhD thesis, Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
  33. Rumelhart, D. and McClelland, J. (1986). On learning the past tense of english verbs. In Explorations in the Micro-Structure of Cognition Vol. II, pages 216–271. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Shaprio, E. (1983). Algorithmic Program Debugging. PhD thesis, Yale University, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Srinivasan, A., Muggleton, R. K. S., and Sternberg, M. (1997). Carcinogenesis predictions using ILP. In Lavrač, N. and Džeroski, S., editors, Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming, pages 273–287. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. LNAI 1297.Google Scholar
  36. Srinivasan, A., Muggleton, S., King, R., and Sternberg, M. (1996). Theories for mutagenicity: a study of first-order and feature based induction. Artificial Intelligence, 85(l,2):277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sternberg, M., King, R., Lewis, R., and Muggleton, S. (1994). Application of machine learning to structural molecular biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 344:365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson, C., Mooney, R., and Tang, L. (1997). Learning to parse natural language database queries into logical form. In Workshop on Automata Induction, Grammatical Inference and Language Acquisition. Paper accessible from www-univ-st-etienne.fr/eurise/pdupont.html www-univ-st-etienne.fr/eurise/pdupont.htmlGoogle Scholar
  39. Turcotte, M., Muggleton, S., and Sternberg, M. (1998). Protein fold recognition. In Page, C., editor, Proc. of the 8th International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming (ILP-98), LNAI 1446, pages 53–64, Berlin. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  40. Turing, A. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236):435–460.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. Yamamoto, A. (1997). Which hypotheses can be found with inverse entailment? In Lavrač, N. and Džeroski, S., editors, Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming, pages 296–308. Springer-Ver lag, Berlin. LNAI 1297.Google Scholar
  42. Zelle, J. and Mooney, R. (1993). Learning semantic grammars with constructive inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 817–822, San Mateo, CA. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  43. Zelle, J. and Mooney, R. (1996a). Comparative results on using inductive logic programming for corpus-based parser construction. In Connectionist, Statistical and Symbolic Approaches to Learning for Natural Language Processing, pages 355–369. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zelle, J. and Mooney, R. (1996b). Learning to parse database queries using Inductive Logic Programming. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1050–1055, Portland, Oregon. AAAI Press/MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Muggleton
    • 1
  • Flaviu Marginean
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkHeslingtonUK

Personalised recommendations