ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
PAC-learnability of determinate logic programs
Full text PdfPdf (898 KB)
Source Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory archive
Proceedings of the fifth annual workshop on Computational learning theory table of contents
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Pages: 128 - 135  
Year of Publication: 1992
ISBN:0-89791-497-X
Authors
Sašo Džeroski  The Turing Institute Limited, 36 North Hanover Street, Glasgow G1 2AD, Scotland, UK
Stephen Muggleton  The Turing Institute Limited, 36 North Hanover Street, Glasgow G1 2AD, Scotland, UK
Stuart Russell  The Turing Institute Limited, 36 North Hanover Street, Glasgow G1 2AD, Scotland, UK
Sponsors
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 1,   Downloads (12 Months): 18,   Citation Count: 23
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues   peer to peer  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/130385.130399
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The field of Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) is concerned with inducing logic programs from examples in the presence of background knowledge. This paper defines the ILP problem, and describes the various syntactic restrictions that are commonly used for learning first-order representations. We then derive some positive results concerning the learnability of these restricted classes of logic programs, by reduction to a standard propositional learning problem. More specifically, k-clause predicate definitions consisting of determinate, function-free, non-recursve Horn clauses with variables of bounded depth are polynomially learnable under simple distributions. Similarly, recursive k-clause definitions are polynomially learnable under simple distributions if we allow existential and membership queries about the target concept.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
Benedek and Itai 1988
 
De Raedt and Bruynooghe 1992
 
Dzeroski and Lavrac 1992
S. Dieroski and N. LavraL Refinement graphs for FOIL and LINUS. In S. H. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, Academic Press, London, 1992. In press.
 
Haussler 1988
 
Lavrac et al. 1991
 
Lloyd 1987
 
Li and Vitanyi 1991
 
Muggleton 1987
S. H. Muggleton. Duce, an oraclebased approach to constructive induction. In Proc. Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 287-292, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1989.
 
Muggleton 1991
 
Muggleton 1992
S. H. Muggleton, editor. Inductive Logic Programming, Academic Press, London, 1992. In press.
 
Muggleton and Buntine 1988
S. H. Muggleton and W. Buntine. Machine invention of first-order predicates by inverting resolution. In Proc. Fifth International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 339- 352, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1988.
 
Muggleton and Feng 1990
S. H. Muggleton and C. Feng. Efficient induction of logic programs. In Proc. First Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, pages 368-381, Ohmsha, Tokyo, 1990.
 
Page and Frisch 1992
C. D. Page and A. M. Frisch. Generalization and learnability: a study of constrained atoms. In S. H. Mugglcton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, Academic Press, London, 1992. In press.
 
Quinlan 1990
 
Quinlan 1991
 
Rivest 1987
 
Rouveirol 1991
C. Rouveirol. Completeness for inductive procedures. In Proc. Eighth International Workshop on Machine Learning, pages 452-456, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1991.
 
Shapiro 1983
Valiant 1984

CITED BY  23
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Collaborative Colleagues:
Sašo Džeroski: colleagues
Stephen Muggleton: colleagues
Stuart Russell: colleagues

Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read: