Advertisement

The Generic Rough Set Inductive Logic Programming (gRS—ILP) Model

  • Arul Siromoney
  • Katsushi Inoue
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 95)

Abstract

The example semantics of Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) systems is said to be in a rough setting when the consistency and completeness criteria cannot both be fulfilled together, because the evidence, background knowledge and declarative bias are such that any induced hypothesis cannot distinguish between some of the positive and negative examples. The gRS-ILP model (generic Rough Set Inductive Logic Programming model) provides a theoretical foundation in this rough setting for an ILP system to induce hypotheses that are used to say that an example is definitely positive, or definitely negative. An illustrative example using Progol is presented. Results are presented of GOLEM experiments using the data set for drug design for Alzheimer’s disease and other experiments using Progol on mutagenesis data and transmembrane domain data.

Keywords

Background Knowledge Logic Program Rough Setting Definitive Description Completeness Condition 
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. 1.
    S. Muggleton. (1991) Inductive logic programming. New Generation Computing, 8(4), 295–318Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Muggleton and L. De Raedt. (1994) Inductive logic programming: Theory and Methods. Journal of Logic Programming, 19/20, 629–679Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Z. Pawlak. (1982) Rough sets. International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 11(5), 341–356Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Z. Pawlak. (1991) Rough Sets — Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Siromoney. (1997) A rough set perspective of Inductive Logic Programming. In Luc De Raedt and Stephen Muggleton, editors, Proceedings of the IJCAI-97 Workshop on Frontiers of Inductive Logic Programming, Nagoya, Japan, 111–113Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Siromoney and K. Inoue. (1998) A framework for Rough Set Inductive Logic Programming — the gRS-ILP model. In Pacific Rim Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, Singapore, 201–217Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Siromoney and K. Inoue. (1999) Elementary sets and declarative biases in a restricted gRS-ILP model. Informatica. To appear.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Muggleton. (1995) Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, 13, 245–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Muggleton and C. Feng. (1992) Efficient induction in logic programs. In S. Muggleton, editor, Inductive Logic Programming, Academic Press, 281–298Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.D. King, A. Srinivasan, and M.J.E. Sternberg. (1995) Relating chemical activity to structure: an examination of ILP successes. New Generation Computing, 13, 411–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G.M. Shutske, F.A. Pierrat, K.J. Kapples, M.L. Cornfeldt, M.R. Szewczak, F.P. Huger, G.M. Bores, V. Haroutunian, and K.L. Davis. (1989) 9-amino-1,2,3,4tetrahydroacridin-1-ols: Synthesis and evaluation as potential Alzheimer’s disease therapeutics. Journal of Medical Chemistry, 32, 1805–1813.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Srinivasan, S.H. Muggleton, R.D. King, and M.J.E. Sternberg. (1996) Theories for mutagenicity: a study of first-order and feature based induction. Artificial Intelligence, 85, 277–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Siromoney and K. Inoue. (1999) The gRS-ILP model and motifs in strings. In N. Zhong, A. Skowron, and S. Ohsuga, editors, New Directions in Rough Sets, Data Mining, and Granular-Soft Computing — 7th International Workshop, RSFDGrC’99, Yamaguchi, Japan, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1711, Springer, 158–167Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Arikawa, S. Miyano, A. Shinohara, S. Kuhara, Y. Mukouchi, and T. Shinohara. (1993) A machine discovery from amino acid sequences by decision trees over regular patterns. New Generation Computing, 11, 361–375MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arul Siromoney
    • 1
  • Katsushi Inoue
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringAnna UniversityChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Systems Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringYamaguchi UniversityUbeJapan

Personalised recommendations