The Learning Shell: Automated Macro Construction

  • Nico Jacobs
  • Hendrik Blockeel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2109)


By analysing sequences of actions performed by a user, one can find frequent subsequences that can be suggested as macro (script) definitions. However, often these ‘actions’ have additional features. In this paper we combine an algorithm to detect frequent subsequences with an inductive logic programming system to automatically generate for each frequent subsequence the most specific ‘template’ for these additional features that is consistent with the observed frequent subsequences. The resulting system is implemented and used in an application where we automatically generate macros from logs of the use of a Unix command shell.


machine learning inductive logic programming interface adaptation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    I. Bratko. Prolog Programming for Artificial Intelligence. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, England, 1990. 2nd Edition.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brian D. Davison and Haym Hirsch. Experiments in UNIX command prediction. In Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 9th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI-97/IAAI-97), pages 827–827, Menlo Park, July 27-31 1997. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Dehaspe. Frequent Pattern Discovery in First-Order Logic. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1998.
  4. 4.
    Saul Greenberg. The Computer User as Toolsmith: The Use, Reuse, and Organization of Computer-Based Tools. Cambridge Series on Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press, 1993. QA76.9H85G73.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benjamin Korvemaker and Russell Greiner. Predicting UNIX command lines: Adjusting to user patterns. In Adaptive User Interfaces: Papers from the 2000 AAAI Spring Symposium, pages 59–64, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Mannila, H. Toivonen, and A.I. Verkamo. Discovery of frequent episodes in event sequences. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 1(3):259–289, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Muggleton. Inductive logic programming. New Generation Computing, 8(4): 295–317, 1991.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rajesh Parekh and Vasant Honovar. Grammar inference, automata induction and language acquisition, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robert A. Wagner and Michael J. Fischer. The string-to-string correction problem. Journal of the ACM, 21(1):168–173, January 1974.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nico Jacobs
    • 1
  • Hendrik Blockeel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuven

Personalised recommendations