Skip to main content

Explicity Using Default Knowledge in Concept Learning: An Extended Description Logics Plus Strict and Default Rules

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Logic Programming and Nonmotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2173))

  • 292 Accesses

Abstract

This work concerns the use of default knowledge in concept learning from positive and negative examples. Two connectives are added to a description logics, C-CLASSIC, previously defined for concept learning. The new connectives (δ and ∈) allow to express the idea that some properties of a given concept definition are default properties, and that some properties that should belong to the concept definition actually do not (these are excepted properties). When performing concept learning both hypotheses and examples are expressed in this new description logics but prior to learning, a saturation process using default and non default rules has to be applied to the examples in order to add default and excepted properties to their definition. As in the original C-CLASSIC, disjunctive learning is performed using a standard greedy set covering algorithm whose generalization operator is the Least Common Subsumer operator of C-CLASSIC δ∈. We exemplify concept learning using default knowledge in this framework and show that explicitly expressing default knowledge may result in simpler concept definitions.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Bain and S. Muggleton, ‘Non-monotonic learning’, in Knowledge Representation and Organization in Machine Learning, ed., Stephen Muggleton, 289–319, ACADEMIC PRESS LIMITED, (1992). 174

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Borgida and P. F. Patel-Schneider, ‘Complete algorithm for subsumption in the CLASSIC description logic‘, Artificial Intelligence Research, 1, 278–308, (1994). 175

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. J. Brachman, ‘A structuralpa radigm for representing knowledge’, Technical Report 3605, BBN Report, (1978). 175

    Google Scholar 

  4. W. Buntine, ‘Generalized subsumption and its application to induction and redundancy’, Artificial Intelligence, 36, (1988). 177

    Google Scholar 

  5. W. W. Cohen, A. Borgida, and H. Hirsh, ‘Computing least common subsumers in description logics’, in 10th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 754–760, San Jose, California, (1992). 177

    Google Scholar 

  6. W. W. Cohen and H. Hirsh, ‘The learnability of description logics with equality constraints’, Machine Learning, 2(4), 169–199, (1994). 175, 178

    Google Scholar 

  7. W. W. Cohen and H. Hirsh, ‘Learning the CLASSIC description logic: theoretical and experimentalresu lts’, in International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 121–133, (1994). 173, 175, 178

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. Coupey and C. Fouqueré, ‘Extending conceptual definitions with default knowledge’, Computational Intelligence, 13(2), (1997). 175

    Google Scholar 

  9. Y. Dimopoulos and A. Kakas, ‘Learning non-monotonic logic programs: learning exceptions’, in Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1995, ed., Springer-Verlag, pp. 107–121, (1995). 174, 183

    Google Scholar 

  10. Y. Dimopoulos and A. Kakas, ‘Abduction and inductive learning’, in Advances in Inductive Logic Programming, ed., L. De Raedt, pp. 144–171, (1996). 183

    Google Scholar 

  11. F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and W. Nutt, ‘The complexity of concept languages’, in Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: 2nd International Conference, eds., J. A. Allen R. Fikes and E Sandewall, pp. 151–162, Cambridge, Mass., (1991). 174

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Doyle and R. S. Patil, ‘Two theses of knowledge representation: language restrictions, taxonomic classification, and the utility of representation services’, Artificial Intelligence, 48(3), 261–297, (1991). 175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. K. Inoue and C. Sakama, ‘Abducing priorities to derive intended conclusions’, in 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 44–49, Japan, (1999). 183

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. U. Kietz and K. Morik, ‘A polynomial approach to the constructive induction of structuralk nowledge’, Machine Learning, 14(2), 193–217, (1994). 175

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. S. Muggleton, ‘Inductive logic programming’, New Generation Computing, 8, 295–318, (1991). 173

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. S. Muggleton and C. Feng, ‘Efficient induction of logic programs’, in Inductive Logic programming, ACADEMIC PRESS, (1992). 178

    Google Scholar 

  17. S. Muggleton and L. De Raedt, ‘Inductive logic programming: Theory and methods’, Journal of Logic Programming, 19, (1994). 173

    Google Scholar 

  18. J. Quantz, G. Dunker, F. Bergmann, and I. Kellner, ‘The flex system’, Technical report, KIT-Report, Technische Universität, Berlin, Germany, (1996). 175

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. Quantz and V. Royer, ‘A preference semantics for defaults in terminological logics’, in Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: 3rd International Conference, 294–305, Bernhard Nebel, Charles Rich and William Swartout, Cambridge, MA., USA, (1992). 184

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. R. Wright, E. S. Weixelbaum, K. Brown, G. T. Vesonder, S. R. Palmer, J. I. Berman, and H. H. Moore, ‘A knowledge-based configurator that supports sales, engineering and manufacturing at att bell network systems’, in Proceedings of the Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conferences, pp. 183–193, Menlo Park, California, USA, (1993). 175

    Google Scholar 

  21. V. Ventos, P. Brézellec, P. Coupey, and H. Soldano, ‘C-classicσ∈: un langage de descriptions pac-learnable’, in Actes Journées Acquisition Validation Apprentissage, JAVA95, pp. 192–196, Grenoble, France, (1995). 174, 179

    Google Scholar 

  22. V. Ventos, ‘A deductive study of c-classicσ∈’, in Proceedings of the International Workshop in Description Logics 96, pp. 192–196, Boston, USA, (1996). 174, 177

    Google Scholar 

  23. V. Ventos, C-CLASSICσ∈: une logique de descriptions pour la définition et l’apprentissage de concepts avec défauts et exceptions, PhD thesis, France, 1997. 174, 177, 179, 180, 181

    Google Scholar 

  24. V. Ventos, P. Brézellec, P. Coupey, and H. Soldano, ‘Lcs operation in c-classicσ∈: formalp roperties and applications’, in International KRUSE Symposium Knowledge Retrieval, Use, and Storage for Efficiency, pp. 124–135, Vancouver, Canada, (1997). 177

    Google Scholar 

  25. V. Ventos, P. Brézellec, H. Soldano, and D. Bouthinon ‘Learning concepts in c-classicσ∈’, in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Description Logics 98, pp. 50–54, Trento, Italy, (1998). 174

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ventos, V., Brézellec, P., Soldano, H. (2001). Explicity Using Default Knowledge in Concept Learning: An Extended Description Logics Plus Strict and Default Rules. In: Eiter, T., Faber, W., Truszczyński, M.l. (eds) Logic Programming and Nonmotonic Reasoning. LPNMR 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2173. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45402-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45402-0_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42593-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45402-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics