# Induction of constraint logic programs

- 2 Citations
- 200 Downloads

## Abstract

Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) is concerned with learning hypotheses from examples, where both examples and hypotheses are represented in the Logic Programming (LP) language. The application of ILP to problems involving numerical information has shown the need for basic numerical background knowledge (e.g. relation “less than”). Our thesis is that one should rather choose Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) as the representation language of hypotheses, since CLP contains the extensions of LP developed in the past decade for handling numerical variables.

This paper deals with learning constrained clauses from positive and negative examples expressed as constrained clauses. A first step, termed *small induction*, gives a computational characterization of the solution clauses, which is sufficient to classify further instances of the problem domain. A second step, termed *exhaustive induction*, explicitly constructs all solution clauses. The algorithms we use are presented in detail, their complexity is given, and they are compared with other prominent ILP approaches.

## Keywords

Logic Program Logic Programming Predicate Symbol Inductive Logic Programming Binary Constraint## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.F. Bergadano and A. Giordana. Guiding induction with domain theories. In Y. Kodratoff and R.S. Michalski, editors,
*Machine Learning: an artificial intelligence approach*, volume 3, pages 474–492. Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.Google Scholar - 2.S. Dzeroski, L. Todorovski, and T. Urbancic. Handling real numbers in ILP: a step towards better behavioral clones. In N. Lavrac and S. Wrobel, editors,
*Proceedings of ECML-95, European Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 283–286. Springer Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar - 3.A. Giordana, L. Saitta, and F. Zini. Learning disjunctive concepts by means of genetic algorithms. In Cohen W. and Hirsh H., editors,
*Proceedings of ICML-94, International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 96–104. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.Google Scholar - 4.ILOG.
*Manuel SOLVER*. ILOG, Gentilly, France, 1995.Google Scholar - 5.J. Jaffar and J. L. Lassez. Constraint logic programming. In
*Proc. of the fourteenth ACM Symposium on the Principles of Programming Languages*, pages 111–119, 1987.Google Scholar - 6.J. Jaffar and M.J. Maher. Constraint logic programming: a survey.
*Journal of Logic Programming*, pages 503–581, 1994.Google Scholar - 7.R.D. King, A. Srinivasan, and M.J.E. Sternberg. Relating chemical activity to structure: an examination of ILP successes.
*New Gen. Comput.*, 13, 1995.Google Scholar - 8.N. Lavrač and S. Džeroski. Inductive Logic Programming:
*Techniques and Applications*. Ellis Horwood, 1994.Google Scholar - 9.J.W. Lloyd.
*Foundations of Logic Programming, second extended edition*. Springer Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar - 10.R.S. Michalski. A theory and methodology of inductive learning. In R.S Michalski, J.G. Carbonell, and T.M. Mitchell, editors,
*Machine Learning: an artificial intelligence approach*, volume 1, pages 83–134. Morgan Kaufmann, 1983.Google Scholar - 11.T.M. Mitchell. Generalization as search.
*Artificial Intelligence*, 18:203–226, 1982.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.F. Mizoguchi and H. Ohwada. Constraint-directed generalizations for learning spatial relations. In
*Proceedings of ILP-91, International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming*, 1991.Google Scholar - 13.S. Muggleton. Inverse entailment and PROGOL.
*New Gen. Comput.*, 13:245–286, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 14.S. Muggleton and L. De Raedt. Inductive logic programming: Theory and methods.
*Journal of Logic Programming*, 19:629–679, 1994.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.S. Muggleton and C. Feng. Efficient induction of logic programs. In
*Proceedings of the 1st conference on algorithmic learning theory*. Ohmsha, Tokyo, Japan, 1990.Google Scholar - 16.C. D. Page and A. M. Frisch. Generalization and learnability: A study of constrained atoms. In S. Muggleton, editor,
*Proceedings of the first International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming*, pages 29–61, 1991.Google Scholar - 17.J.R. Quinlan. Learning logical definition from relations.
*Machine Learning*, 5:239–266, 1990.Google Scholar - 18.M. Sebag. A constraint-based induction algorithm in FOL. In W. Cohen and H. Hirsh, editors,
*Proceedings of ICML44, International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 275–283. Morgan Kaufmann, July 1994.Google Scholar - 19.M. Sebag. Delaying the choice of bias: A disjunctive version space approach. In L. Saitta, editor,
*Proceedings of the 13*^{th}*International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 444–452. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar - 20.M. Sebag and C. Rouveirol. Induction of maximally general clauses compatible with integrity constraints. In S. Wrobel, editor,
*Proceedings of ILP-94, International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming*, 1994.Google Scholar - 21.M. Sebag and C. Rouveirol. Constraint inductive logic programming. In L. de Raedt, editor,
*Advances in ILP*, pages 277–294. IOS Press, 1996.Google Scholar - 22.M. Sebag and C. Rouveirol. Tractable induction and classification in FOL. In
*Proceedings of IJCAI-97*. Morgan Kaufmann, 1997.Google Scholar - 23.A. Srinivasan and S. Muggleton. Comparing the use of background knowledge by two ILP systems. In L. de Raedt, editor,
*Proceedings of ILP-95*. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1995.Google Scholar - 24.P. Van Hentenryck and Deville Y. Constraint Logic Programming. In
*Proceedings of POPL'97*, 1987.Google Scholar - 25.P. Van Hentenryck and Deville Y. Operational semantics of constraint logic programming over finite domains. In
*Proceedings of POPL'97*, 1991.Google Scholar - 26.J.-D. Zucker and J. G. Ganascia. Selective reformulation of examples in concept learning. In W. Cohen and H. Hirsh, editors,
*Proc. of 11th International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 352–360. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.Google Scholar - 27.J.-D. Zucker and J.-G. Ganascia. Representation changes for efficient learning in structural domains. In L. Saitta, editor,
*Proceedings of the 13*^{th}*International Conference on Machine Learning*, pages 543–551, 1996.Google Scholar