In this paper, we focus on a novel knowledge reuse scenario where the knowledge in the source schema needs to be translated to a semantically heterogeneous target schema. We refer to this task as "knowledge translation" (KT). Unlike data translation and transfer learning, KT does not require any data from the source or target schema. We adopt a probabilistic approach to KT by representing the knowledge in the source schema, the mapping between the source and target schemas, and the resulting knowledge in the target schema all as probability distributions, specially using Markov random fields and Markov logic networks. Given the source knowledge and mappings, we use standard learning and inference algorithms for probabilistic graphical models to find an explicit probability distribution in the target schema that minimizes the Kullback-Leibler divergence from the implicit distribution. This gives us a compact probabilistic model that represents knowledge from the source schema as well as possible, respecting the uncertainty in both the source knowledge and the mapping. In experiments on both propositional and relational domains, we find that the knowledge obtained by KT is comparable to other approaches that require data, demonstrating that knowledge can be reused without data.
Deductive knowledge translation @cite_7 essentially tries to solve the same problem, but it only considers deterministic knowledge and mappings. Our KT work can handle knowledge and mappings with uncertainty, which is more general than the deterministic scenario deductive knowledge translation @cite_7 can handle.
@cite_7
2165738341
Considering data size and privacy concerns in a distributed setting, it is neither desirable nor feasible to translate data from one resource to another in data mining. Rather, it makes more sense to first mine knowledge from one data resource and then translate the discovered knowledge (models) to another for knowledge reuse. Although there have been successful research efforts in knowledge transfer, the knowledge translation problem in the semantically heterogenous scenario has not been addressed adequately. In this paper, we first propose to use Semantic Web ontologies to represent rule-based knowledge to make the knowledge computer "translatable". Instead of an inductive learning approach, we treat knowledge translation as a deductive inference. We elaborate a translation method with both the forward and backward chaining to address the asymmetry of translation. We show the effectiveness of our knowledge translation method in decision tree rules and association rules mined from sports and gene data respectively. In a more general context, this work illustrates the promise of a novel research which leverages ontologies and Semantic Web techniques to extend the knowledge transfer in data mining to the semantically heterogeneous scenario. When updating a knowledge base, several problems may arise. One of the most important problems is that of integrity constraints satisfaction. The classic approach to this problem has been to develop methods for checking whether a given update violates an integrity constraint. An alternative approach consists of trying to repair integrity constraints violations by performing additional updates that maintain knowledge base consistency. Another major problem in knowledge base updating is that of view updating, which determines how an update request should be translated into an update of the underlying base facts. We propose a new method for updating knowledge bases while maintaining their consistency. Our method can be used for both integrity constraints maintenance and view updating. It can also be combined with any integrity checking method for view updating and integrity checking. The kind of updates handled by our method are: updates of base facts, view updates, updates of deductive rules, and updates of integrity constraints. Our method is based on events and transition rules, which explicitly define the insertions and deletions induced by a knowledge base update. Using these rules, an extension of the SLDNF procedure allows us to obtain all possible minimal ways of updating a knowledge base without violating any integrity constraint. The dynamics of belief and knowledge is one of the major components of any autonomous system that should be able to incorporate new pieces of information. We introduced the knowledge base dynamics to deal with two important points: fi rst, to handle belief states that need not be deductively closed; and the second point is the ability to declare certain parts of t he belief as immutable. In this paper, we address another, radically new approach to this problem. This approach is very close to the Hansson's dyadic representation of belief. Here, we consider the immutable part as defining a new logical system. By a logical syste m, we mean that it defines its own consequence relation and closure oper ator. Based on this, we provide an abductive framework for knowledge base dynamics. 1. Introduction and Overview.- 1.1 Why Integrate Neurons and Symbols?.- 1.2 Strategies of Neural-Symbolic Integration.- 1.3 Neural-Symbolic Learning Systems.- 1.4 A Simple Example.- 1.5 How to Read this Book.- 1.6 Summary.- 2. Background.- 2.1 General Preliminaries.- 2.2 Inductive Learning.- 2.3 Neural Networks.- 2.3.1 Architectures.- 2.3.2 Learning Strategy.- 2.3.3 Recurrent Networks.- 2.4 Logic Programming.- 2.4.1 What is Logic Programming?.- 2.4.2 Fixpoints and Definite Programs.- 2.5 Nonmonotonic Reasoning.- 2.5.1 Stable Models and Acceptable Programs.- 2.6 Belief Revision.- 2.6.1 Truth Maintenance Systems.- 2.6.2 Compromise Revision.- I. Knowledge Refinement in Neural Networks.- 3. Theory Refinement in Neural Networks.- 3.1 Inserting Background Knowledge.- 3.2 Massively Parallel Deduction.- 3.3 Performing Inductive Learning.- 3.4 Adding Classical Negation.- 3.5 Adding Met alevel Priorities.- 3.6 Summary and Further Reading.- 4. Experiments on Theory Refinement.- 4.1 DNA Sequence Analysis.- 4.2 Power Systems Fault Diagnosis.- 4.3.Discussion.- 4.4.Appendix.- II. Knowledge Extraction from Neural Networks.- 5. Knowledge Extraction from Trained Networks.- 5.1 The Extraction Problem.- 5.2 The Case of Regular Networks.- 5.2.1 Positive Networks.- 5.2.2 Regular Networks.- 5.3 The General Case Extraction.- 5.3.1 Regular Subnetworks.- 5.3.2 Knowledge Extraction from Subnetworks.- 5.3.3 Assembling the Final Rule Set.- 5.4 Knowledge Representation Issues.- 5.5 Summary and Further Reading.- 6. Experiments on Knowledge Extraction.- 6.1 Implementation.- 6.2 The Monk's Problems.- 6.3 DNA Sequence Analysis.- 6.4 Power Systems Fault Diagnosis.- 6.5 Discussion.- III. Knowledge Revision in Neural Networks.- 7. Handling Inconsistencies in Neural Networks.- 7.1 Theory Revision in Neural Networks.- 7.1.1The Equivalence with Truth Maintenance Systems.- 7.1.2Minimal Learning.- 7.2 Solving Inconsistencies in Neural Networks.- 7.2.1 Compromise Revision.- 7.2.2 Foundational Revision.- 7.2.3 Nonmonotonic Theory Revision.- 7.3 Summary of the Chapter.- 8. Experiments on Handling Inconsistencies.- 8.1 Requirements Specifications Evolution as Theory Refinement.- 8.1.1Analysing Specifications.- 8.1.2Revising Specifications.- 8.2 The Automobile Cruise Control System.- 8.2.1Knowledge Insertion.- 8.2.2Knowledge Revision: Handling Inconsistencies.- 8.2.3Knowledge Extraction.- 8.3 Discussion.- 8.4 Appendix.- 9. Neural-Symbolic Integration: The Road Ahead.- 9.1 Knowledge Extraction.- 9.2 Adding Disjunctive Information.- 9.3 Extension to the First-Order Case.- 9.4 Adding Modalities.- 9.5 New Preference Relations.- 9.6 A Proof Theoretical Approach.- 9.7 The "Forbidden Zone" [Amax, Amin].- 9.8 Acceptable Programs and Neural Networks.- 9.9 Epilogue.