Cited by 62Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsData Stream Mining Techniques

Incremental learning of event definitions with Inductive Logic Programming

Open access
Katzouris, Nikos, Artikis, Alexander, Paliouras, Georgios·2015·Machine Learning

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10994-015-5512-1

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If learning to recognise events, a user could provide the axioms of the event calculus.

    “If learning to recognise events, a user could provide the axioms of the event calculus (Katzouris et al., 2015).”

    From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Katzouris et al., 2015

  • Because of the expressivity of logic programs, ILP can learn complex relational theories, such as cellular automata, event calculus theories, and Petri nets, and various forms of non-monotonic programs.

    “Because of the expressivity of logic programs, ILP can learn complex relational theories, such as cellular automata (Inoue et al., 2014; Evans et al., 2021), event calculus theories (Katzouris et al., 2015), and Petri nets (Bain & Srinivasan, 2018), and various forms of non-monotonic programs (Bain & Muggleton, 1991; Inoue & Kudoh, 1997; Sakama, 2001).”

    From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Katzouris et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Biba, M., Basile, T. M. A., Ferilli, S., & Esposito, F. (2006). Improving scalability in ILP incremental systems. In Proceedings of CILC 2006-Italian conference on computational logic, Bari, Italy, pp. 26–27.
  2. Langley, P. (1995). Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary science, chapter order effects in incremental learning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  3. Luckham, D., & Schulte, R. (2008). Event processing glossary, version 1.1. Trento: Event Processing Technical Society.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Katzouris, N., Artikis, A., & Paliouras, G.
Affiliations
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • University of Piraeus (GR)
Corresponding author
  • Katzouris, Nikos
  • Artikis, Alexander
Venue
Machine Learning
Published
2015-06-20
Volume
100
Issue
2-3
Pages
555-585
ISSN
  • 0885-6125 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0565
OpenAlex
W1500684598
Cited by
62
References
78
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
FWCI
5.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Machine Learning (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
European Commission (619435)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Data Stream Mining Techniques
Keywords
incremental learning, event recognition, event definition, inductive logic programming, event calculus, temporal knowledge bases, activity recognition, urban transport

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review