Skip to main content

Inductive logic program synthesis with DIALOGS

  • Implementations
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Inductive Logic Programming (ILP 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1314))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

DIALOGS (Dialogue-based Inductive and Abductive LOGic program Synthesizer) is a schema-guided synthesizer of recursive logic programs; it takes the initiative and queries a (possibly computationally naive) specifier for evidence in her/his conceptual language. The specifier must know the answers to such simple queries, because otherwise s/he wouldn't even feel the need for the synthesized program. DIALOGS can be used by any learner (including itself) that detects, or merely conjectures, the necessity of invention of a new predicate. Due to its foundation on a powerful codification of a “recursion-theory” (by means of the template and constraints of a divide-and-conquer schema), DIALOGS needs very little evidence and is very fast.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angluin, D.: Queries and concept learning. Machine Learning 2(4):319–342, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bergadano, F., Gunetti, D.: Learning clauses by tracing derivations. In S. Wrobel (ed), Proc. of ILP'94, pp. 11–29. GMD-Studien Nr. 237, Sankt Augustin, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Biermann, A.W.: Dealing with search. In A.W. Biermami, G. Guiho, and Y. Kodratoff (eds), Automatic Program Construction Techniques, pp. 375–392. Macmillan, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boström, H., Idestam-Almquist, P.: Specialization of logic programs by pruning SLD-trees. In S. Wrobel (ed), Proc. of ILP'94, pp. 31–48. GMD-Studien Nr. 237, Sankt Augustin, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, W.C.: Compiling prior knowledge into an explicit bias. In Proc. of ICML'92, pages 102–110. Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  6. De Raedt, L., Bruynooghe, M.: Belief updating from integrity constraints and queries. Artificial Intelligence 53(2-3):291–307, February 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  7. De Raedt, L., Bruynooghe, M.: Interactive concept learning and constructive induction by analogy. Machine Learning 8:107–150, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Erdem, E.: An MSG Method for Inductive Logic Program Synthesis. Senior Project Final Report, Bilkent University, Ankara (Turkey), May 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Flener, P.: Logic Program Synthesis from Incomplete Information. Kluwer, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Flener, P.: Predicate Invention in Inductive Program Synthesis. TR BU-LEIS-9509, Bilkent University, Ankara (Turkey), 1995. Submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Flener, P.: Synthesis of Logic Algorithm Schemata. TR BU-LEIS-96xx, Bilkent University, Ankara (Turkey), 1996. Update of TR BU-CEIS-9502. In preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Flener, P., Deville, Y.: Logic program synthesis from incomplete specifications. Journal of Symbolic Computation 15(5–6):775–805, May/June 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Flener, P., Popelinsky, L.: On the use of inductive reasoning in program synthesis. In L. Fribourg and F. Turini (eds), Proc. of META/LOPSTR'94. LNCS 883:69–87, Springer-Verlag, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Flener, P., Deville, Y.: Logic Program Transformation through Generalization Schemata. TR BU-CEIS-96yy, Bilkent University, Ankara (Turkey), 1996. In preparation. Extended abstract in M. Proietti (ed), Proc. of LOPSTR'95. LNCS 1048:171–173, Springer-Verlag, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hamfelt, A., Fischer-Nilsson, J.: Inductive metalogic programming. In S. Wrobel (ed), Proc. of ILP'94, pp. 85–96. GMD-Studien Nr. 237, Sankt Augustin, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kietz, J.U., Wrobel, S.: Controlling the complexity of learning in logic through syntactic and task-oriented models. In S. Muggleton (ed), Inductive Logic Programming, pp. 335–359. Volume APIC-38, Academic Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lapointe, S., Ling, C., Matwin, S.: Constructive inductive logic programming. In S. ]Muggleton (ed), Proc. of ILP'93, pp. 255–264. TR IJS-DP-6707, J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana (Slovenia), 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Muggleton, S., Buntine, W.: Machine invention of first-order predicates by inverting resolution. In Proc. of ICML'88, pages 339–352. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Plotkin, G.D.: A note on inductive generalization. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds), Machine Intelligence 5:153–163. Edinburgh University Press, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Stahl, I.: Predicate invention in ILP: An overview. TR 1993/06, Fakultät Informatik, Universität Stuttgart (Germany), 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sterling, L.S., Kirschenbaum, M.: Applying techniques to skeletons. In J.-M. Jacquet (ed), Constructing Logic Programs, pp. 127–140. John Wiley, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tinkham, N.L.: Induction of Schemata for Program Synthesis. Ph.D. Thesis, Duke University, Durham (NC, USA), 1990. 199–211

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Stephen Muggleton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Flener, P. (1997). Inductive logic program synthesis with DIALOGS. In: Muggleton, S. (eds) Inductive Logic Programming. ILP 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1314. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63494-0_55

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63494-0_55

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63494-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69583-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics