Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

On the complexity of some Inductive Logic Programming problems

  • Part I Invited Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Inductive Logic Programming (ILP 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1297))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The bounded ILP-consistency problem for function-free Horn clauses is described as follows. Given a set E + and E − of function-free ground Horn clauses and an integer k polynomial in E +∪E −, does there exist a function-free Horn clause C with no more than k literais such that C subsumes each element in E + and C does not subsume any element in E −. It is shown that this problem is Σ P2 complete. We derive some related results on the complexity of ILP and discuss the usefulness of such complexity results.

This work has been supported by FWF (Austrian Science Funds) under the project P11580-MAT “A Query System for Disjunctive Deductive Databases” and by the ISICNR, Istituto per la Sistemistica e l'Inforrnatica (Italian National Research Council), under grant n.224.07.5.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. L.M. Adleman. Molecular Computation of Solutions to Combinatorial Problems. Science 266, pp. 1021–1024, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. L. D. Baxter. The NP-completeness of Subsumption. Unpublished manuscript, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P. Cholewinski, V.W. Marek, and M. Truszczynski Default Reasoning System DeReS Proc. Fifth Intl. Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'96), Cambridge, MA, Nov.5–8, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  4. W. Cohen. PAC-Learning Recursive Logic Programs: Efficient Algorithms. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2: 501–539, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. W. Cohen. PAC-Learning Recursive Logic Programs: Negative Results. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2: 541–573, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  6. W. Cohen and C. D. Page. Polynomial Learnability and Inductive Logic Programming — Methods and Results. New Generation Computing, 13(3-4): 369–409, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  7. L. De Raedt and S. Džeroski. First order jk-clausal theories are PAC-learnable. Artificial Intelligence, 70: 375–392, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Dix and M. Müller. Implementing Semantics of Disjunctive Logic programs Using Fringes and Abstract properties. Proc. Second Intl. workshop on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic reasoning (LPNMR-93), Lisbon, Portugal, July 1993, pp. 43–59, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. T. Eiter and G. Gottlob. On the Computational Cost of Disjunctive Logic Programming: Propositional Case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 15(3/4):289–323, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  10. T. Eiter, N. Leone, C. Mateis, G. Pfeifer, and F. Scarcello. A Deductive System for Nonmonotonic Reasoning. In Proc. 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR '97), Lecture Notes in AI (LNAI), J. Dix, U. Furbach, and A. Nerode Eds., Springer, Berlin, 1997 (to appear).

    Google Scholar 

  11. T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, and H. Mannila.Disjunctive Datalog. ACM Trans. on Database Syst., September 1997. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability — A guide to the Theory of NP-completeness. Freman, San Francisco, CA, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In Logic Programming: Proc. Fifth Intl Conference and Symposium, pp. 1070–1080, Cambridge, Mass., 1988. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. E. M. Gold. Language Identification in the Limit. Information and Control, 10:447–474, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  15. G. Gottlob. Subsumption and Implication. Information Processing Letters, 24:109–111, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  16. G. Gottlob. Complexity Results for Nonmonotonic Logics. J. Logic and Computation, 2(3):397–425, June 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. S. Johnson. A Catalog of Complexity Classes. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume A, chapter 2. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  18. J.U. Kietz and S. Džeroski. Inductive logic programming and learnability. SIGART Bulletin 5(1): 22–32 (Special issue on Inductive Logic Programming), 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. Haussler. Quantifying inductive bias: AI learning algorithms and Valiant's model. Artificial Intelligence, 36(2):177–221, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  20. R.J. Lipton. Using DNA to solve NP-complete Problems. Priceton University.

    Google Scholar 

  21. W. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Autoepistemic Logic. JACM, 38(3):588–619, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. H. Muggleton. Inductive Logic Programming. New Generation Computing, 8(4):295–318, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Inductive Logic Programming, S. H. Muggleton ed., Academic Press, London, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  24. S. H. Muggleton and L. De Raedt. Inductive Logic Programming: Theory and Methods. Journal of Logic Programming, 19,20:629–679, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Muggleton, S., and Page, D., A learnability model for universal representations. In Proc. Fourth International Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming, pages 139–160. GMD, Bonn, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  26. C. D. Page and A. M. Frish. Generalization and Learnability: a study of constrained atoms. In Inductive Logic Programming, pp.29–61, S. H. Muggleton ed., Academic Press, London, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  27. G. D. Plotkin. A note on Inductive Generalization. In Machine Intelligence, pp. 153–163, B. Meltzer and D. Michie eds., American Elsevier, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  28. R. Reiter. A Logic for Default Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  29. J. Robinson. A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. Journal of the ACM, 12(1):23–41, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  30. R. E. Schapire. The Strength of Weak Learnability. Machine Learning, 5:197–227, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Diana Rooiß and Klaus Wagner. On the Power of DNA Computation. Information and Computation, 131(2):95–109, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  32. L. G. Valiant. A Theory of the Learnable. Communications of the ACM, 27:1134–1142.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Informationssysteme, Technische Universität Wien, Paniglgasse 16, A-1040, Wien, Austria

    Georg Gottlob, Nicola Leone & Francesco Scarcello

Authors
  1. Georg Gottlob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicola Leone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Scarcello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Nada Lavrač Sašo Džeroski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gottlob, G., Leone, N., Scarcello, F. (1997). On the complexity of some Inductive Logic Programming problems. In: Lavrač, N., Džeroski, S. (eds) Inductive Logic Programming. ILP 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1297. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3540635149_31

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3540635149_31

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63514-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69587-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation