Abstract
In this paper, an alternative approach to the induction of relational concepts is presented. The underlying framework relies on the concept of exception, an exception being a counterexample left within the scope of a description devoted to classifying examples of the given target concept. While trying to characterize the target concept, first an initial description is searched for. Such a solution must be complete, although not necessarily consistent. This means that some counterexamples are allowed to be misclassified. As counterexamples (i.e., exceptions) must be taken into account in order to properly classify them, the corresponding learning process is performed in several steps, each step devoted to coping with exceptions generated during the previous one. Eventually, the process comes to an end, usually leading to a description that uses a kind of Vere's counterfactuals to refine, at different levels of granularity, the underlying concept.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cameron-Jones, R.M., and Quinlan, J.R., “Efficient top-down induction of logic programs,” SIGART, 5, 33–42, 1993.
Esposito, F., Malerba, D., Semeraro, G., and Pazzani M.J., “A Machine Learning Approach to Document Understanding,“ Proc. 2nd Int. workshop on Machine Learning, Harpers Ferry, WV, pp. 276–292, May 1993.
Gemello, R., Mana, F., and Saitta, L., “Rigel: An Inductive Learning System” Machine Learning, Vol. 6, pp. 7–35, 1991.
Michalski, R.S., “Pattern Recognition as Rule-Guided Inductive Inference,” IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 2, pp. 349–361, 1980.
Michalski, R.S., “A Theory and Methodology of Inductive Learning,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 20, pp. 111–161, 1983.
Muggleton, S., and feng, C., “Efficient Induction of Logic Programs,” in S. Muggleton (Ed.), Inductive Logic Programming, pp. 281–298, London, Academic Press, 1992.
Pazzani, M.J., Brunk, C.A., and Silverstein, G., “A Knowledge Intensive Approach to Learning Relational Concepts,” Proc. 8th International Workshop on Machine Learning, Evanston, Illinois, pp. 432–436, 1991.
Quinlan, R., “Learning relations: Comparison of a symbolic and a connectionist approach,” Technical Report 346, Basser Dept. Comp. Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 1989.
Quinlan J.R., and Cameron-Jones, R.M., “Induction of Logic Programs: FOIL and Related Systems,” New Generation Computing, Vol. 13, pp. 287–312, 1995.
Turney, P., “Low Size-Complexity Inductive Logic Programming: The East-West Challenge Considered as a Problem in Cost-Sensitive Classification,” Proc. of the Fifth International Inductive Logic Programming Workshop, ILP-95, pp. 247–263, 1995.
Vere, S.A., “Multilevel Counterfactuals for Generalizations of Relational Concepts and Productions,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 14, pp. 139–164, 1980.
Winston, P.H., “Learning by Augmenting Rules and Accumulating Censors,” in Michalski, Carbonell, Mitchell (eds.), Machine Learning: An AI Approach, Vol. 2, 1986.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Armano, G., Fumera, G. (1997). Learning relational concepts at different levels of granularity. In: Lenzerini, M. (eds) AI*IA 97: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI*IA 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1321. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63576-9_103
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63576-9_103
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63576-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69601-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive