θ-subsumption in a Constraint Satisfaction perspective

Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science)

Volumn 2157, Issue , 2001, Pages 164-178

  Maloberti, Jérôme ^a   Sebag, Michèle ^a,b  

^a UFR 919 Laboratoire d'Informatique Pour la Mécanique et les Sciences de l'Ingénieur   (France)

^b ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS;

ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE; PHASE TRANSITION PHENOMENON; STATISTICAL FRAMEWORK; WORST-CASE COMPLEXITY;

INDUCTIVE LOGIC PROGRAMMING (ILP);

EID: 84937397355     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-44797-0_14     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. C. Bessière and J.-C. R/'egin. Mac and combined heuristics: Two reasons to forsake FC (and CBJ ?) on hard problems. In 2nd Int. Conf. on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pages 61-75, 1996.
2. R. Dechter and J. Pearl. Tree clustering for constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence, 38:353-366, 1989.
3. A. Giordana and L. Saitta. Phase transitions in relational learning. Machine Learning, 2:217-251, 2000.
4. A. Giordana, L. Saitta, M. Sebag, and M. Botta. Analyzing relational learning in the phase transition framework. In P. Langley, editor, 17th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, pages 311-318. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.
5. G. Gottlob and A. Leitsch. On the efficiency of subsumption algorithms. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 32(2):280-295, 1985
6. M. Gyssens, P. G. Jeavons, and D. A. Cohen. Decomposing constraint satisfaction problems using database techniques. Artificial Intelligence, 66:57-89, 1994.
7. T. Hogg, B. Huberman, and C. Williams. Phase transitions and the search problem. Artificial Intelligence, 81:1-15, 1996.
8. J.-U. Kietz and M. Lübbe. An efficient subsumption algorithm for inductive logic programming. In W. Cohen and H. Hirsh, editors, 11th Int. Conf. on Machine Leaning. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.
9. A. K. Mackworth. Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence, 8:99-118, 1977.
10. S. Muggleton and L. De Raedt. Inductive logic programming: Theory and methods. Journal of Logic Programming, 19:629-679, 1994.
11. C. Nédellec, C. Rouveirol, H. Adé, F. Bergadano, and B. Tausend. Declarative bias in ILP. In L. de Raedt, editor, Advances in ILP, pages 82-103. IOS Press, 1996.
12. S. Nienhuys-Cheng and R. de Wolf. Foundations of Inductive Logic Programming. Springer Verlag, 1997.
13. G. D. Plotkin. A note on inductive generalization. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence, volume 5, pages 153-163, 1970.
14. P. Prosser. Hybrid algorithms for the constraint satisfaction problem. Computational Intelligence, 9:268-299, 1993.
15. J.R. Quinlan. Learning logical definitions from relations. Machine Learning, 5(3):239-266, 1990.
16. J. Robinson. A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. Journal of the ACM, 12(1):23-41, 1965.
17. L. Saitta and J.-D. Zucker. Semantic abstraction for concept representation and learning. In AAAI, editor, Symposium on Abstraction, Reformulation and Approximation (SARA98), 1998.
18. T. Scheffer, R. Herbrich, and F. Wysotzki. Efficient θ-subsumption based on graph algorithms. In S. Muggleton, editor, Proceedings Int. Workshop on Inductive Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
19. M. Sebag and C. Rouveirol. Resource-bounded relational reasoning: Induction and deduction through stochastic matching. Machine Learning, 38:41-62, 2000.
20. A. Srinivasan, S.H. Muggleton, M.J.E. Sternberg, and R.D. King. Theories for mutagenicity: a study in first order and feature-based induction. Artificial Intelligence, 85:277-299, 1996.
21. E. Tsang. Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press, 1993.