Advertisement

Learning

  • J. W. Lloyd
Part of the Cognitive Technologies book series (COGTECH)

Abstract

This chapter discusses a widely applicable learning paradigm that leads to comprehensible theories, provides an overview of the Alkemy learning system, and also gives some illustrations of this approach to learning.

Keywords

Background Theory Inductive Logic Programming Open List Bibliographical Note Induce Decision Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 3.
    H. Blockeel and L. De Raedt. Top-down induction of logical decision trees. In K. Van Marcke and W. Daelemans, editors, Proceedings of the Ninth Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC’97), pages 333–342, Antwerpen, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    H. Blockeel and L. De Raedt. Top-down induction of first-order logical decision trees. Artificial Intelligence, 101: 285–297, 1998.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 6.
    H. Boström. Covering vs. divide-and-conquer for top-down induction of logic programs. In Proceedings of 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), pages 1194–1200. Morgan Kaufmann, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    A.F. Bowers, C. Giraud-Carrier, and J.W. Lloyd. Classification of individuals with complex structure. In P. Langley, editor, Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference (ICML2000), pages 81–88. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    A.F. Bowers, C. Giraud-Carrier, and J.W. Lloyd. A knowledge representation framework for inductive learning. http://csl.anu.edu.au/’jwl, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    L. Breiman, J.H. Friedman, R.A. Olshen, and C.J. Stone. Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman and Hall, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 13.
    W.W. Cohen. Grammatically biased learning: Learning logic programs using an explicit antecedent description language. Artificial Intelligence, 68: 303–366, 1994.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 14.
    W.W. Cohen. Learning trees and rules with set-valued features. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence,pages 709–716, Menlo Park, CA, 1996. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  9. 18.
    T.G. Dietterich, R.H. Lathrop, and T. Lozano-Pérez. Solving the multiple instance problem with axis-parallel rectangles. Artificial Intelligence, 89: 31–71, 1997.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 25.
    C. Ferri-Ramirez, J. Hernández-Orallo, and M.J. Ramirez-Quintana. Learning functional logic classification concepts from databases. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Functional and Logic Programming (WFLP 2000), pages 296–308. UPV University Press, Valencia, 2000/2039, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 26.
    C. Ferri-Ramirez, J. Hernändez-Orallo, and M.J. Ramirez-Quintana. Incremental learning of functional logic programs. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Functional and Logic Programming (FLOPS 2001), pages 233247. Springer, 2001. Lectures Notes in Computer Science 2024.Google Scholar
  12. 27.
    P. Finn, S. Muggleton, D. Page, and A. Srinivasan. Pharmacophore discovery using the inductive logic programming system PROGOL. Machine Learning, 30: 241–270, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 28.
    P. Flach and N. Lavrac. Learning in clausal logic: A perspective on inductive logic programming. In A. Kakas and F. Sadri, editors, Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, pages 437–471. Springer, LNAI 2407, 2002. Essays in Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part I.Google Scholar
  14. 40.
    C.J. Kennedy and C. Giraud-Carrier. An evolutionary approach to concept learning with structured data. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithms (ICANNGA’99), pages 331–366. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 41.
    C.J. Kennedy and C. Giraud-Carrier. Predicting chemical carcinogenesis using structural information only. In Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (PKDDD’99), pages 360–365, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 42.
    J.-U. Kietz and S. Wrobel. Controlling the complexity of learning in logic through syntactic and task-oriented models. In S. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, chapter 16, pages 335–359. Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 43.
    R. King, S. Muggleton, S. Srinivasan, and M. Sternberg. Structure-activity relationships derived by machine learning: The use of atoms and their bond connectivities to predict mutagenicity in inductive logic programming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93: 438–442, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 44.
    S. Kramer. Structural regression trees. In Proceedings of 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-96), pages 812–819. AAAI Press/MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 45.
    S. Kramer, N. Lavrac, and P. Flach. Propositionalization approaches to relational data mining. In S. Dzeroski and N. Lavraè, editors, Relational Data Mining, pages 262–291. Springer, September 2001.Google Scholar
  20. 47.
    J.B. Larson and R.S. Michalski. Inductive inference of VL decision rules. In Workshop on Pattern-directed Inference Systems, pages 23–27, 1977. Also in ACM SIGART Newsletter, 63, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 49.
    N. Lavrac and P.A. Flach. An extended transformation approach to inductive logic programming. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 2 (4): 458–494, October 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 50.
    H. Liu and H. Motoda, editors. Feature Extraction, Construction and Selection: A Data Mining Perspective. Kluwer, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. 51.
    H. Liu and H. Motoda. Feature Selection for Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Kluwer, 1998.Google Scholar
  24. 59.
    D. Michie, S. Muggleton, D. Page, and A. Srinivasan. To the international computing community: A new east-west challenge. Oxford University Computing Laboratory, UK, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 61.
    T.M. Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. 69.
    F. Neri and L. Saitta. Knowledge representation in machine learning. In F. Bergadano and L. De Raedt, editors, Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning, pages 20–27. Springer, LNAI 784, 1994.Google Scholar
  27. 79.
    S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice-Hall, second edition, 2002.Google Scholar
  28. 73.
    J.R. Quinlan. Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1: 81–106, 1986.Google Scholar
  29. 75.
    J.R. Quinlan. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  30. 89.
    L. Watanabe and L. Rendell. Learning structural decision trees from examples. In Proceedings of 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), pages 770 — 776. Morgan Kaufmann, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© J. W. Lloyd 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. W. Lloyd
    • 1
  1. 1.Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering, Computer Sciences LaboratoryThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations