Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Learnability of Description Logic Programs

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Inductive Logic Programming (ILP 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2583))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 329 Accesses

Abstract

Carin-ALN is an interesting new rule learning bias for ILP. By allowing description logic terms as predicates of literals in datalog rules, it extends the normal bias used in ILP as it allows the use of all quantified variables in the body of a clause. It also has at-least and at-most restrictions to access the amount of indeterminism of relations. From a complexity point of view Carin-ALN allows to handle the difficult indeterminate relations efficiently by abstracting them into determinate aggregations. This paper describes a method which enables the embedding of Carin-ALN rule subsumption and learning into datalog rule subsumption and learning with numerical constraints. On the theoretical side, this allows us to transfer the learnability results known for ILP to Carin-ALN rules. On the practical side, this gives us a preprocessing method, which enables ILP systems to learn Carin-ALN rules just by transforming the data to be analyzed. We show, that this is not only a theoretical result in a first experiment: learning Carin-ALN rules from a standard ILP dataset.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baader, F. and R. Küsters: 1998, ‘Computing the least common subsumer and the most specific concept in the presence of cyclic ALN-concept descriptions’. In: O. Herzog and A. Günter (eds.): Proceedings of the 22nd Annual German Conference on Artificial Intelligence, KI-98. pp. 129–140, Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baader, F. and U. Sattler: 2000, ‘Tableau Algorithms for Description Logics’. In: R. Dyckho. (ed.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Reasoning with Tableaux and Related Methods (Tableaux 2000). pp. 1–18, Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Borgida, A.: 1996, ‘On the relative expressiveness of description logics and predicate logics’. Artificial Intelligence 82, 353–367.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brachman, R. J. and J. G. Schmolze: 1985, ‘An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System’. Cognitive Science 9(2), 171–216.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, W. and C. Page: 1995, ‘Polynomial Learnability and Inductive Logic Programming: Methods and Results’. New Generation Computing, Special issue on Inductive Logic Programming 13(3-4), 369–410.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cohen, W. W.: 1995, ‘Pac-Learning non-recursive Prolog Clauses’. Artificial Intelligence 79, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen, W. W., A. Borgida, and H. Hirsh: 1992, ‘Computing Least Common Subsumers in Description Logic’. In: Proc. of the 10th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. San Jose, California, MIT-Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, W. W. and H. Hirsh: 1994, ‘The Learnability of Description Logics with Equality Constraints’. Machine Learning 17, 169–199.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Donini, F., M. Lenzerini, C. Nardi, and W. Nutt: 1991, ‘Tractable Concept Languages’. In: Proc. IJCAI-91. pp. 458–463.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Džeroski, S. and B. Dolsak: 1992, ‘A Comparision of Relation Learning Algorithms on the Problem of Finite Element Mesh Design’. In: Proc. of the ISEEK Workshop. Ljubljana, Slovenia.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Frazier, M. and L. Pitt: 1994, ‘Classic Learning’. In: Proc. of the 7th Annual ACM Conference on Computational Learning Theory. pp. 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goasdoué, F., C. Rouveirol, and V. Ventos: 2001, ‘Optimized Coverage Test for Learning in Carin-ALN’. Technical report, L.R.I, C.N.R.S and Université Paris Sud. Work in progress.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Helft, N.: 1989, ‘Induction as nonmonotonic inference’. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kietz, J.-U.: 1996, ‘Induktive Analyse Relationaler Daten’. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University Berlin. (in german).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kietz, J.-U.: 2002, ‘Learnability of Description Logic Programs (Extended Version)’. Technical report, http://www.kietz.ch/.

  16. Kietz, J.-U. and S. Džeroski: 1994, ‘Inductive Logic Programming and Learnability’. SIGART Bulletin 5(1).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kietz, J.-U. and M. Lübbe: 1994, ‘An Efficient Subsumption Algorithm for Inductive Logic Programming’. In: Proc. of the Eleventh International Conference on Machine Learning (ML94).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kietz, J.-U. and K. Morik: 1994, ‘A polynomial approach to the constructive Induction of Structural Knowledge’. Machine Learning 14(2), 193–217.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Krogel, M. A. and S. Wrobel: 2001, ‘Transformation-based Learning Using Mulirelational Aggregation’. In: Proc. Elenth International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming, ILP’2001. Berlin, New York, Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Levy, A. Y. and M.-C. Rouset: 1998, ‘Combining horn rules and description logic in Carin’. Artificial Intelligence 104, 165–209.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Muggleton, S. H.: 1995, ‘Inverse Entailment and Progol’. New Generation Computing 13.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Muggleton, S. H. and C. Feng: 1992, ‘Efficient induction of logic programs’. In: S. H. Muggleton (ed.): Inductive Logic Programming. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nebel, B.: 1990a, Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nebel, B.: 1990b, ‘Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable’. Artificial Intelligence 43, 235–249.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Plotkin, G. D.: 1970, ‘A note on inductive generalization’. In: B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.): Machine Intelligence, Vol. 5. American Elsevier, Chapt. 8, pp. 153–163.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Quinlan, R. and R. M. Cameron-Jones: 1993, ‘FOIL: A Midterm Report’. In: P. Brazdil (ed.): Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Machine Leaning (ECML-93). Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 3–20, Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rouveirol, C. and V. Ventos: 2000, ‘Towards learning in Carin-ALN’. In: J. Cussens and A. M. Frisch (eds.): Proc. Tenth International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming, ILP’2000. Berlin, Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sebag, M. and C. Rouveirol: 1996, ‘Constraint Inductive Logic Programming’. In: L. de Raedt (ed.): Advances in ILP. IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. kdlabs AG, Flurstr. 32, 8022, Zürich, Switzerland

    Kietz Jörg-Uwe

Authors
  1. Kietz Jörg-Uwe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Technology and Engineering, University of Ottawa, 800 King Edward Ave., K1N 6N5, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Stan Matwin

  2. School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, 2052, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Claude Sammut

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jörg-Uwe, K. (2003). Learnability of Description Logic Programs. In: Matwin, S., Sammut, C. (eds) Inductive Logic Programming. ILP 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2583. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36468-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36468-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00567-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36468-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation