Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T08:13:54.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploiting Answer Set Programming with External Sources for Meta-Interpretive Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2018

TOBIAS KAMINSKI ,
THOMAS EITER  and
KATSUMI INOUE
TOBIAS KAMINSKI
Affiliation:
Technical University of Vienna (TU Wien), Vienna, Austria (e-mail: kaminski@kr.tuwien.ac.at, eiter@kr.tuwien.ac.at)
THOMAS EITER
Affiliation:
Technical University of Vienna (TU Wien), Vienna, Austria (e-mail: kaminski@kr.tuwien.ac.at, eiter@kr.tuwien.ac.at)
KATSUMI INOUE
Affiliation:
National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan (e-mail: inoue@nii.ac.jp)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Meta-Interpretive Learning (MIL) learns logic programs from examples by instantiating meta-rules, which is implemented by the Metagol system based on Prolog. Viewing MIL-problems as combinatorial search problems, they can alternatively be solved by employing Answer Set Programming (ASP), which may result in performance gains as a result of efficient conflict propagation. However, a straightforward ASP-encoding of MIL results in a huge search space due to a lack of procedural bias and the need for grounding. To address these challenging issues, we encode MIL in the HEX-formalism, which is an extension of ASP that allows us to outsource the background knowledge, and we restrict the search space to compensate for a procedural bias in ASP. This way, the import of constants from the background knowledge can for a given type of meta-rules be limited to relevant ones. Moreover, by abstracting from term manipulations in the encoding and by exploiting the HEX interface mechanism, the import of such constants can be entirely avoided in order to mitigate the grounding bottleneck. An experimental evaluation shows promising results.

Keywords

Inductive Logic ProgrammingMeta-Interpretive LearningAnswer Set Programming
Type
Original Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 18 , Special Issue 3-4: 34th International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2018 , pp. 571 - 588
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

References

Cropper, A. and Muggleton, S. H. 2014. Logical minimisation of meta-rules within meta-interpretive learning. In ILP 2014. LNCS, vol. 9046. Springer, 62–75.Google Scholar
Cropper, A. and Muggleton, S. H. 2015. Learning efficient logical robot strategies involving composable objects. In IJCAI 2015. AAAI Press, 3423–3429.Google Scholar
Cropper, A. and Muggleton, S. H. 2016a. Learning higher-order logic programs through abstraction and invention. In IJCAI 2016. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 1418–1424.Google Scholar
Cropper, A. and Muggleton, S. H. 2016b. Metagol system. https://github.com/metagol/metagol.Google Scholar
Cropper, A., Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A., and Muggleton, S. H. 2015. Meta-interpretive learning of data transformation programs. In ILP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9575. Springer, 46–59.Google Scholar
Dai, W., Muggleton, S., Wen, J., Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A., and Zhou, Z. 2017. Logical vision: One-shot meta-interpretive learning from real images. In ILP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10759. Springer, 46–62.Google Scholar
Dietterich, T. G., Domingos, P. M., Getoor, L., Muggleton, S., and Tadepalli, P. 2008. Structured machine learning: the next ten years. Machine Learning 73, 1, 3–23.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Fink, M., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Redl, C., and Schüller, P. 2016. A model building framework for answer set programming with external computations. TPLP 16, 4, 418–464.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Fink, M., Krennwallner, T., and Redl, C. 2016. Domain expansion for ASP-programs with external sources. Artif. Intell. 233, 84–121.Google Scholar
Faber, W., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G. 2011. Semantics and complexity of recursive aggregates in answer set programming. Artif. Intell. 175, 1, 278–298.Google Scholar
Farquhar, C., Grov, G., Cropper, A., Muggleton, S., and Bundy, A. 2015. Typed meta-interpretive learning for proof strategies. In ILP (Late Breaking Papers) 2015. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1636. CEUR-WS.org, 17–32.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., and Wanko, P. 2016. Theory solving made easy with clingo 5. In ICLP (Techn. Comm.). OASICS, vol. 52. Schloss Dagstuhl, 2:1–2:15.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., and Schaub, T. 2012. Conflict-driven answer set solving: From theory to practice. Artif. Intell. 187-188, 52–89.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gen. Comput. 9, 3–4, 365–386.Google Scholar
Larson, J. and Michalski, R. S. 1977. Inductive inference of VL decision rules. SIGART Newsletter 63, 38–44.Google Scholar
Law, M., Russo, A., and Broda, K. 2014. Inductive learning of answer set programs. In JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761. Springer, 311–325.Google Scholar
Lin, D., Dechter, E., Ellis, K., Tenenbaum, J. B., and Muggleton, S. 2014. Bias reformulation for one-shot function induction. In ECAI 2014. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 263. IOS Press, 525–530.Google Scholar
Michie, D., Muggleton, S., Page, D., and Srinivasan, A. 1994. To the international computing community: A new east-west challenge. Tech. rep., Oxford University Computing laboratory, UK.Google Scholar
Muggleton, S. H., Lin, D., Pahlavi, N., and Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A. 2014. Meta-interpretive learning: application to grammatical inference. Machine Learning 94, 1, 25–49.Google Scholar
Muggleton, S. H., Lin, D., and Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A. 2015. Meta-interpretive learning of higher-order dyadic datalog: predicate invention revisited. Machine Learning 100, 1, 49–73.Google Scholar
Otero, R. P. 2001. Induction of stable models. In ILP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2157. Springer, 193–205.Google Scholar
Ray, O. 2009. Nonmonotonic abductive inductive learning. J. Applied Logic 7, 3, 329–340.Google Scholar
Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A., Bohan, D., Raybould, A., and Muggleton, S. 2014. Towards machine learning of predictive models from ecological data. In ILP 2014. LNCS, vol. 9046. Springer, 154–167.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Kaminski et al. supplementary material

Kaminski et al. supplementary material 1

Download Kaminski et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 123 KB