1 / 12

Wednesday, February 7, 2001 William H. Hsu Department of Computing and Information Sciences, KSU

Lecture 10. KDD Presentation (3 of 3): Rule Induction. Wednesday, February 7, 2001 William H. Hsu Department of Computing and Information Sciences, KSU http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~bhsu Readings: “Using Inductive Learning to Generate Rules for Semantic Query Optimization”, Hsu and Knoblock.

craig
Download Presentation

Wednesday, February 7, 2001 William H. Hsu Department of Computing and Information Sciences, KSU

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Lecture 10 KDD Presentation (3 of 3): Rule Induction Wednesday, February 7, 2001 William H. Hsu Department of Computing and Information Sciences, KSU http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~bhsu Readings: “Using Inductive Learning to Generate Rules for Semantic Query Optimization”, Hsu and Knoblock

  2. Presentation Outline • Paper • “Using Inductive Learning to Generate Rules for Semantic Query Optimization” • Authors: C.-N. Hsu and C. A. Knoblock • In Advances in Knowledge Discovery in Databases (Fayyad, Piatetsky-Shapiro, Smyth, Uthurusamy, eds.) • Overview • Learning semantic knowledge • Rule induction • Purpose: semantic query optimization (SQO) • Analogue: inductive logic programming (ILP) • Knowledge representation: Horn clauses • Idea: use reformulation of queries to learn (induce) rules • Application of Machine Learning to KDD: Issues • Rules: Good hypothesis language for performance element (SQO)? • How are goals of database query speedup achieved? • Key strengths: straightforward induction method; can use domain theory

  3. Deductive System for Inductive Learning • Recall: Definition of Induction • Induction: finding h such that  <xi, f(xi)>  D . (B  D  xi) | f(xi) • A | B means Alogically entailsB • xiith target instance • f(xi) is the target function value for example xi (data set D = {<xi, f(xi)>}) • Background knowledgeB (e.g., inductive bias in inductive learning) • Idea • Design inductive algorithm by inverting operators for automated deduction • Same deductive operators as used in theorem proving Training Examples Theorem Prover New Instance Classification of New Instance (or “Don’t Know”) Assertion { c H } Inductive bias made explicit Induction as Inverted Deduction:Design Principles

  4. Induction as Inverted Deduction:Example • Deductive Query • “Pairs <u, v> of people such that u is a child of v” • Relations (predicates) • Child (target predicate) • Father, Mother, Parent, Male, Female • Learning Problem • Formulation • Concept learning: target function f is Boolean-valued • i.e., target predicate • Components • Target function f(xi):Child (Bob, Sharon) • xi:Male (Bob), Female (Sharon), Father (Sharon, Bob) • B: {Parent (x, y)  Father (x, y). Parent (x, y)  Mother (x, y).} • What satisfies  <xi, f(xi)>  D . (B  D  xi) | f(xi)? • h1: Child (u, v)  Father (v, u). - doesn’t use B • h2: Child (u, v)  Parent (v, u). - uses B

  5. Induction as Inverted Deduction:Advantages and Disadvantages • Advantages (Pros) • Subsumes earlier idea of finding h that “fits” training data • Domain theory B helps define meaning of “fitting” the data: B  D  xi | f(xi) • Suggests algorithms that search H guided by B • Theory-guided constructive induction [Donoho and Rendell, 1995] • akaKnowledge-guided constructive induction [Donoho, 1996] • Disadvantages (Cons) • Doesn’t allow for noisy data • Q: Why not? • A: Consider what  <xi, f(xi)>  D . (B  D  xi) | f(xi) stipulates • First-order logic gives a huge hypothesis space H • Overfitting… • Intractability of calculating all acceptable h’s

  6. C: Pass-Exam  Study C2: Know-Material  Study Inverting Resolution:Example C2: Know-Material  Study C1: Pass-Exam  Know-Material Resolution C1: Pass-Exam  Know-Material Inverse Resolution C: Pass-Exam  Study

  7. Semantic Query Optimization (SQO)Methodology • Goals (Section 17.1) • Use semantic rules to find “shortcuts” to queries • Example: all CIS 864 students have studied basic probability • Query: “Find all CIS 864 students who have had courses in probability and stochastic processes” • Can drop condition • Learn rules from data • Observe when query can be simplified • Generalize over these “training cases” • Background (Section 17.2) • Queries: Datalog select-from-where subset of Structured Query Language (SQL) • Semantic rules: Horn clauses (cf. Prolog) • Learning Framework (Section 17.3) • Concept: SatisfyInputQuery (+ iff instance, i.e., tuple, satistifes query) • Algorithm for dropping constraints (generalization): greedy min-set-cover • Heuristic (preference bias): gain/cost ratio

  8. Learning Framework and Algorithm • Given: Few Example Queries, Data Set D (Many Tuples) • Methodology (Sections 17.3-4) • Step 1 (Optimizer): optimize queries by dropping constraints if possible • Use Greedy-Min-Set-Cover algorithm • Call learning module to add rules to rule base • Step 2 (Find Alternative Queries): • 2a (Construct Candidate Constraints): use gain/cost ratio (number of – cases excluded / syntactic length of constraint) • Rationale: Occam’s Razor bias, min-set-cover (ratio-bounded approximation) • 2b (Search for Constraints): build on newly-introduced relations • Step 3 (Update Rule Bank): apply newly discovered rules • Put newly-induced rules into rule base • Use inference engine (Prolog) to generate facts that will shorten query search

  9. Design Rationale • Problem (Sections 17.1-4) • How to generalize well over reformulable queries? • Want to make sure inducer does not overfit observed pattern of training examples • Solution Approach (Section 17.3-4) • Idea: Occam’s Razor bias • Prefer shorter hypotheses, all other things being equal • Why does this work? • Types of Bias • Preference bias • Captured (“encoded”) in learning algorithm • Compare: search heuristic • Language bias • Captured (“encoded”) in knowledge (hypothesis) representation • Compare: restriction of search space • akarestriction bias

  10. Experimental Method • Experimental Results (Section 17.5) • Improvement using SQO by rule induction (Table 17.4) • Reformulation using induced rules improves short and long queries (about uniformly) • Speedup • Breakdown of savings by NIL queries vs. overall • Claims (Section 17.5) • SQO is scalable: can use rule induction on large DBs • SQO is general: can apply other search techniques, heuristics

  11. Summary:Content Critique • Key Contribution • Simple, direct integration of inductive rule learning with SQO • Significance to KDD: good way to apply ILP-like learning in DB optimization • Applications • Inference • Decision support systems (DSS) • Strengths • Somewhat generalizable approach • Significant for KDD • Applies to other learning-for-optimization inducers • Formal analysis of SQO complexity • Experiments: measure • Speedup learning % time saved • How wasted time is saved (NIL queries, short vs. long queries) cf. performance profiling • Weaknesses, Tradeoffs, and Questionable Issues • Insufficient comparison of alternative heuristics (MDL, etc.) • Empirical performance of exhaustive search?

  12. Summary:Presentation Critique • Audience: Researchers and Practitioners of • AI (machine learning, intelligent database optimization) • Database management systems • Applied logic • Positive and Exemplary Points • Good, abstract examples illustrating role of SQO and ILP • Real DB optimization example (3 Oracle DBs) • Negative Points and Possible Improvements • Insufficient description of analytical hypothesis representations • Semantics: not clear how to apply other algorithms of rule induction • Decision tree • First-order ILP (e.g., FOIL)

More Related