Cited by 47Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceData Mining Algorithms and Applications

Structure Learning via Parameter Learning

Wang, William Yang, Mazaitis, Kathryn, Cohen, William W.·2014·Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management

Abstract

A key challenge in information and knowledge management is to automatically discover the underlying structures and patterns from large collections of extracted information. This paper presents a novel structure-learning method for a new, scalable probabilistic logic called ProPPR. Our approach builds on the recent success of meta-interpretive learning methods in Inductive Logic Programming (ILP), and we further extends it to a framework that enables robust and efficient structure learning of logic programs on graphs: using an abductive second-order probabilistic logic, we show how first-order theories can be automatically generated via parameter learning. To learn better theories, we then propose an iterated structural gradient approach that incrementally refines the hypothesized space of learned first-order structures. In experiments, we show that the proposed method further improves the results, outperforming competitive baselines such as Markov Logic Networks (MLNs) and FOIL on multiple datasets with various settings; and that the proposed approach can learn structures in a large knowledge base in a tractable fashion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2661829.2662022

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Metarules are another popular syntactic bias used by many ILP approaches, including Metagol and, to an extent, ∂ ILP.

    “Metarules (Cropper and Tourret 2020) are another popular syntactic bias used by many ILP approaches (De Raedt and Bruynooghe 1992; Wang et al. 2014; Albarghouthi et al. 2017; Kaminski et al. 2018), including Metagol (Muggleton et al. 2015; Cropper et al. 2020; Cropper and Muggleton 2016) and, to an extent 5 , ∂ ILP (Evans and Grefenstette 2018).”

    From Learning programs by learning from failures (2021) · cites this paper as Wang et al. 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, W. Y., Mazaitis, K., & Cohen, W. W.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
Publisher
ACM
Published
2014-11-03
Pages
1199-1208
ISSN
2155-0751 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089334447
Cited by
47
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.55
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-12-2-0342)
  • Google
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
Keywords
structure learning, probabilistic logic, inductive logic programming, parameter learning, knowledge base learning, Markov logic networks

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