Cited by 1,644Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeData Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsMachine Learning and Algorithms

Learning Logical Definitions from Relations

Open access
Quinlan, J.R.·1990·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 · 10.1023/a:1022699322624

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • ILP systems such as ALEPH and FOIL have no predicate invention and limited recursion learning and therefore cannot learn recursive grammars from example sequences.

    “ILP systems such as ALEPH (Srinivasan 2001) and FOIL (Quinlan 1990) have no predicate invention and limited recursion learning and therefore cannot learn recursive grammars from example sequences.”

    From Meta-interpretive learning of higher-order dyadic datalog: predicate invention revisited (2015) · cites this paper as Quinlan 1990

    The Discussion (page not available in our copy) says FOIL cannot invent new predicates, and §5.7 says its handling of recursion is incomplete. But the paper also says FOIL can find recursive definitions; it does not establish that FOIL cannot learn recursive grammars from example sequences. It does not address ALEPH. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many popular ILP systems, such as FOIL, Progol, TILDE, and Aleph struggle to learn recursive programs.

    “Indeed, many popular ILP systems, such as FOIL (Quinlan 1990), Progol (Muggleton 1995), TILDE (Blockeel and De Raedt 1998), and Aleph (Srinivasan 2001) struggle to learn recursive programs.”

    From Learning programs by learning from failures (2021) · cites this paper as Quinlan 1990

    The paper’s section on recursive definitions describes restrictions on the recursive clauses FOIL can learn, and §5.7 says its methods for avoiding infinite recursion are incomplete. But §5.7 also says FOIL can discover many common recursive definitions, so the broad claim that FOIL struggles to learn recursive programs overstates the limitation. The other systems have separate citations and are not assessed against this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Early work in ILP explored lifelong/multi-task/transfer learning, but it has been under-explored until recently, mostly because of new techniques for PI.

    “Although early work in ILP explored this form of learning (Sammut, 1981; Quinlan, 1990), it has been under-explored until recently (Lin et al., 2014; Cropper, 2019, 2020; Hocquette & Muggleton, 2020; Dumancic et al., 2021), mostly because of new techniques for PI.”

    From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Quinlan, 1990

    Section 4 describes FOIL learning definitions for one target relation at a time, and Section 7 says it uses other relations as background knowledge. That supports early work on multiple relational learning tasks, but the cited passages do not show FOIL retaining or transferring what it learned between tasks. The later claim about why the area was under-explored is attached to other citations, not Quinlan (1990). (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Quinlan's (1990) FOIL system is one of the most well-known ILP systems and is a natural extension of ID3 from the propositional setting to the first-order setting.

    “Quinlan's (1990) FOIL system is one of the most well-known ILP systems and is a natural extension of ID3 (Quinlan, 1986) from the propositional setting to the first-order setting.”

    From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Quinlan, 1990

  • Many systems employ the covering algorithm whereby hypotheses are constructed iteratively clause by clause.

    “The above paragraph refers only to generality orders on single clauses, as many systems employ the covering algorithm whereby hypotheses are constructed iteratively clause by clause (Quinlan, 1990; De Raedt & Dehaspe, 1997; Muggleton, 1995; Blockeel & De Raedt, 1998; Srinivasan, 2001).”

    From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Quinlan, 1990

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

5 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Schlimmer, J.C., and Fisher, D. (1986). A case study of incremental concept formation. Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 296-501). Philadelphia, PA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quinlan, J. R.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Quinlan, J.R.
Venue
Machine Learning
Published
1990-08
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
239-266
ISSN
  • 0885-6125 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0565
OpenAlex
W1999138184
Cited by
1,644
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 41
FWCI
47.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Machine Learning (publishedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council
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 › Machine Learning and Algorithms
Keywords
foil, inductive logic programming, Horn clauses, relational data, first-order logic, rule induction

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