Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From extensional to intensional knowledge: Inductive logic programming techniques and their application to deductive databases

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Transactions and Change in Logic Databases (DYNAMICS 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1472))

Abstract

This chapter aims at demonstrating that inductive logic programming (ILP), a recently established subfield of machine learning that induces first-order clausal theories from examples, combines very well with the area of deductive databases. In the context of deductive databases, induction can be defined as inference of intensional knowledge from extensional knowledge. Classification-oriented ILP approaches correspond to induction of view definitions (IDB rules), while description-oriented ILP approaches correspond to induction of integrity constraints. The applicability of ILP methods in deductive databases thus includes induction of IDB rules and learning of integrity constraints. Further possible applications are reverse engineering, query optimisation and intensional answers, and data mining. The chapter gives an accessible introduction to ILP with particular emphasis on applications in deductive databases.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. D. Angluin, M. Frazier & L. Pitt. Learning conjunctions of Horn clauses. Machine Learning, 9(2/3):147–164, 1992.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. I. Bratko & S. Muggleton. Applications of Inductive Logic Programming. Comm. ACM 38(11):65–70, November 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. L. De Raedt & M. Bruynooghe. A theory of clausal discovery. Proc. 13th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, pp.1058–1063, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  4. L. De Raedt, editor. Advances in Inductive Logic Programming. IOS Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  5. L. De Raedt & L. Dehaspe. Clausal discovery. Machine Learning, 26(2/3):99–146, 1997.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. S. DŽeroski & I. Bratko. Applications of Inductive Logic Programming. In [4], pp.65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. Flach. Simply Logical — intelligent reasoning by example. John Wiley, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P.A. Flach. Inductive characterisation of database relations. Proc. Fifth Int. Symp. on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems ISMIS'90, Z.W. Ras, M. Zemankowa & M.L. Emrich (editors), North-Holland, pp.371–378, 1990. Full version appeared as ITK Research Report 23, Inst. for Language Technology & Artificial Intelligence, Tilburg University.

    Google Scholar 

  9. P.A. Flach. Predicate invention in Inductive Data Engineering. Proc. Eur. Conf. on Machine Learning ECML'93, P.B. Brazdil (editor), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 667, Springer-Verlag, pp.83–94, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P.A. Flach. Conjectures — an inquiry concerning the logic of induction. PhD thesis, Tilburg University, April 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P.A. Flach. Rationality postulates for induction. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, Yoav Shoham (ed.), pp.267–281. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P.A. Flach. Normal forms for Inductive Logic Programming. Proc. 7th Int. Worksh. on Inductive Logic Programming ILP-97, N. Lavrac & S. DŽeroski (eds.), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1297, pp.149–156. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. P.A. Flach & N. Lachiche. Cooking up integrity constraints with Primus. Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. H. Gallaire, J. Minker & J.-M. Nicolas. Logic and databases: a deductive approach. Computing Surveys 16 (2): 153–185, 1984.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. G. Gottlob. Subsumption and implication. Inf. Proc. Letters 24:109–111, 1987.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. N. Helft. Induction as nonmonotonic inference. Proc. First Int. Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning KR'89, Morgan Kaufmann, pp.149–156, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Y. Huhtala, J. Kärkkäinen, P. Porkka & H. Toivonen. Efficient Discovery of Functional and Approximate Dependencies Using Partitions. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Data Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, February 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  18. P. Idestam-Almquist. Generalization of clauses. PhD thesis, Stockholm University, October 1993. IdestamPhD93

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. Idestam-Almquist. Generalization of Clauses under Implication. J. AI Research, 3:467–489, 1995.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. P. van der Laag. An analysis of refinement operators in Inductive Logic Programming. PhD Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, December 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  21. N. Lavrač & S. DŽeroski. Inductive Logic Programming: techniques and applications. Ellis Horwood, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  22. N. Lavrač, S. DŽeroski & I. Bratko. Handling imperfect data in Inductive Logic Programming. In [4], pp.48–64.

    Google Scholar 

  23. N. Lavrač, I. Weber, D. Zupanič, D. Kazakov, O. ©tepánková & S. DŽeroski. ILPNET repositories on WWW: Inductive Logic Programming systems, datasets and bibliography. AI Communications 9(4):157–206, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  24. D.W. Loveland & G. Nadathur. Proof procedures for logic programming. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Vol. 5, D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger & J.A. Robinson (editors), Oxford University Press, pp.163–234, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  25. D. Maier. The theory of relational databases. Computer Science Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  26. H. Mannila & K.-J. Räihä. Algorithms for inferring functional dependencies from relations. Data & Knowledge Engineering 12:83–99, 1994.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. S. Muggleton & W. Buntine. Machine invention of first-order predicates by inverting resolution. Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, J. Laird (ed.), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp.339–352, 1988. Also in [30], pp.261–280.

    Google Scholar 

  28. S. Muggleton & C. Feng. Efficient induction of logic programs. Proc. First Conf. on Algorithmic Learning Theory, Ohmsha, Tokyo, 1990. Also in [30], pp.281–298.

    Google Scholar 

  29. S. Muggleton. Inductive Logic Programming. New Generation Computing, 8(4):295–317, 1991. Also in [30], pp.3–27.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. S. Muggleton, editor. Inductive Logic Programming. Academic Press, 1992. MuggletonBook92

    Google Scholar 

  31. S. Muggleton & L. De Raedt. Inductive Logic Programming: theory and methods. J. Logic Programming, 19/20:629–679, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. S. Muggleton. Inverse entailment and Progol. New Generation Computing, 13:245–286, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  33. C. Nédellec, C. Rouveirol, H. Adé, F. Bergadano & B. Tausend. Declarative bias in Inductive Logic Programming. In [4], pp.82–103.

    Google Scholar 

  34. J. Paredaens, P. De Bra, M. Gyssens & D. Van Guch. The structure of the relational database model. Springer-Verlag, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  35. G. Plotkin. A note on inductive generalisation. Machine Intelligence 5, B. Meltzer & D. Michie (editors), North-Holland, pp.153–163, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  36. G. Plotkin. A further note on inductive generalisation. Machine Intelligence 6, B. Meltzer & D. Michie (editors), North-Holland, pp.101–124, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J.R. Quinlan. Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, 5(3):239–266, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  38. C. Rouveirol. Flattening and saturation: two representation changes for generalization. Machine Learning, 14(2):219–232, 1994.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. R. Reiter. Towards a logical reconstruction of relational database theory. On conceptual modelling: perspectives from Artificial Intelligence, databases and programming languages, M.L. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos & J.W. Schmidt (editors), Springer-Verlag, pp.191–233, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  40. I. Savnik & P.A. Flach. Bottom-up induction of functional dependencies from relations. Proc. AAAI '93 Workshop Knowledge Discovery in Databases, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro (editor), pp.174–185, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  41. E.Y. Shapiro. Inductive inference of theories from facts. Techn. rep. 192, Comp. Sc. Dep., Yale University, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  42. E.Y. Shapiro. Algorithmic program debugging. MIT Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  43. I. Stahl. Compression measures in ILP. In [4], pp.295–307.

    Google Scholar 

  44. L. Valiant. A theory of the learnable. Comm. ACM 27:1134–1142, 1984.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol, Merchant Venturers Building, Woodland Road, BS8 1UB, Bristol, UK

    Peter A. Flach

Authors
  1. Peter A. Flach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Burkhard Freitag Hendrik Decker Michael Kifer Andrei Voronkov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Flach, P.A. (1998). From extensional to intensional knowledge: Inductive logic programming techniques and their application to deductive databases. In: Freitag, B., Decker, H., Kifer, M., Voronkov, A. (eds) Transactions and Change in Logic Databases. DYNAMICS 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1472. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0055506

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0055506

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-65305-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49449-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation