Vítor Santos Costa

Abstract

Abstract
In this paper, we present two online structure learning algorithms for NeuralLog, NeuralLog+OSLR and NeuralLog+OMIL. NeuralLog is a system that compiles first-order logic programs into neural networks. Both learning algorithms are based on Online Structure Learner by Revision (OSLR). NeuralLog+OSLR is a port of OSLR to use NeuralLog as inference engine; while NeuralLog+OMIL uses the underlying mechanism from OSLR, but with a revision operator based on Meta-Interpretive Learning. We compared both systems with OSLR and RDN-Boost on link prediction in three different datasets: Cora, UMLS and UWCSE. Our experiments showed that NeuralLog+OMIL outperforms both the compared systems on three of the four target relations from the Cora dataset and in the UMLS dataset, while both NeuralLog+OSLR and NeuralLog+OMIL outperform OSLR and RDNBoost on the UWCSE, assuming a good initial theory is provided.

Abstract
Finger-pricking is the traditional procedure for glycaemia monitoring. It is an invasive method where the person with diabetes is required to prick their finger. In recent years, continuous-glucose monitoring (CGM), a new and more convenient method of glycaemia monitoring, has become prevalent. CGM provides continuous access to glycaemic values without the need of finger-pricking. Data mining can be used to understand glycaemic values, and to ideally warn users of abnormal situations. CGM provides significantly more data than finger-pricking. Thus, the amount and value of CGM data ultimately questions the role of finger-pricking for glycaemic studies. In this work we use the OhioT1DM data set in order to study the importance of finger-prick-based data. We use Random Forest as a classification method, a robust method that tends to obtain quality results. Our results indicate that, although more demanding and scarcer, finger-prick-based glycaemic values have a significant role on diabetes management and on data mining.

Abstract
The semantic foundations for logic programming are usually separated into two different approaches. The operational semantics, which uses SLD-resolution, the proof method that computes answers in logic programming, and the declarative semantics, which sees logic programs as formulas and its semantics as models. Here, we define a new operational semantics called TSLD-resolution, which stands for Typed SLD-resolution, where we include a value wrong, that corresponds to the detection of a type error at run-time. For this we define a new typed unification algorithm. Finally we prove the correctness of TSLD-resolution with respect to a typed declarative semantics.

Abstract
Both logic programming in general and Prolog in particular have a long and fascinating history, intermingled with that of many disciplines they inherited from or catalyzed. A large body of research has been gathered over the last 50 years, supported by many Prolog implementations. Many implementations are still actively developed, while new ones keep appearing. Often, the features added by different systems were motivated by the interdisciplinary needs of programmers and implementors, yielding systems that, while sharing the classic core language, in particular, the main aspects of the ISO-Prolog standard, also depart from each other in other aspects. This obviously poses challenges for code portability. The field has also inspired many related, but quite different languages that have created their own communities. This article aims at integrating and applying the main lessons learned in the process of evolution of Prolog. It is structured into three major parts. First, we overview the evolution of Prolog systems and the community approximately up to the ISO standard, considering both the main historic developments and the motivations behind several Prolog implementations, as well as other logic programming languages influenced by Prolog. Then, we discuss the Prolog implementations that are most active after the appearance of the standard: their visions, goals, commonalities, and incompatibilities. Finally, we perform a SWOT analysis in order to better identify the potential of Prolog and propose future directions along with which Prolog might continue to add useful features, interfaces, libraries, and tools, while at the same time improving compatibility between implementations.