Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-qgndx Total loading time: 0.215 Render date: 2021-09-25T06:27:39.956Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Incremental and Iterative Learning of Answer Set Programs from Mutually Distinct Examples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2018

ARINDAM MITRA
Affiliation:
Arizona State University (e-mail: amitra7@asu.edu, chitta@asu.edu)
CHITTA BARAL
Affiliation:
Arizona State University (e-mail: amitra7@asu.edu, chitta@asu.edu)
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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

Over the years the Artificial Intelligence (AI) community has produced several datasets which have given the machine learning algorithms the opportunity to learn various skills across various domains. However, a subclass of these machine learning algorithms that aimed at learning logic programs, namely the Inductive Logic Programming algorithms, have often failed at the task due to the vastness of these datasets. This has impacted the usability of knowledge representation and reasoning techniques in the development of AI systems. In this research, we try to address this scalability issue for the algorithms that learn answer set programs. We present a sound and complete algorithm which takes the input in a slightly different manner and performs an efficient and more user controlled search for a solution. We show via experiments that our algorithm can learn from two popular datasets from machine learning community, namely bAbl (a question answering dataset) and MNIST (a dataset for handwritten digit recognition), which to the best of our knowledge was not previously possible. The system is publicly available at https://goo.gl/KdWAcV.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

References

Athakravi, D., Alrajeh, D., Broda, K., Russo, A., and Satoh, K. 2015. Inductive learning using constraint-driven bias. In Inductive Logic Programming, pp. 1632. Springer, Cham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athakravi, D., Corapi, D., Broda, K., and Russo, A. 2013. Learning through hypothesis refinement using answer set programming. In International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming, pp. 3146. Springer.Google Scholar
Dai, W.-Z., Muggleton, S. H., and Zhou, Z.-H. 2015. Logical vision: Meta-interpretive learning for simple geometrical concepts. In ILP (Late Breaking Papers), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In ICLP/SLP, Volume 88, pp. 10701080.Google Scholar
Gulwani, S., Hernandez-Orallo, J., Kitzelmann, E., Muggleton, S., Schmid, U., and Zorn, B. 2015. Inductive programming meets the real world. Communications of the ACM 58, 11, 9099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzouris, N., Artikis, A., and Paliouras, G. 2015. Incremental learning of event definitions with inductive logic programming. Machine Learning 100, 2–3, 555585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzouris, N., Artikis, A., and Paliouras, G. 2017. Distributed online learning of event definitions. CoRR abs/1705.02175.Google Scholar
Kazmi, M., Schüller, P. and Saygin, Y. 2017. Improving scalability of inductive logic programming via pruning and best-effort optimisation. Expert Systems with Applications.Google Scholar
Law, M., Russo, A., and Broda, K. 2014. Inductive learning of answer set programs. In European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 311325. Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
Law, M., Russo, A., and Broda, K. 2015. Learning weak constraints in answer set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 15, 4–5, 511525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, M., Russo, A., and Broda, K. 2016. Iterative learning of answer set programs from context dependent examples. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 16, 5–6, 834848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeCun, Y. 1998. The mnist database of handwritten digits. http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/.Google Scholar
Mitra, A. and Baral, C. 2016. Addressing a question answering challenge by combining statistical methods with inductive rule learning and reasoning. In AAAI, pp. 2779–2785.Google Scholar
Muggleton, S. 1991. Inductive logic programming. New generation computing 8, 4, 295318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muggleton, S. 1995. Inverse entailment and progol. New generation computing 13, 3–4, 245286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otero, R. 2001. Induction of stable models. Inductive Logic Programming, 193–205.Google Scholar
Ray, O. 2009. Nonmonotonic abductive inductive learning. Journal of Applied Logic 7, 3, 329340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakama, C. 2005. Induction from answer sets in nonmonotonic logic programs. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 6, 2 (April), 203231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakama, C. and Inoue, K. 2009. Brave induction: a logical framework for learning from incomplete information. Machine Learning 76, 1 (Jul), 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schüller, P. and Kazmi, M. 2017. Best-effort inductive logic programming via fine-grained cost-based hypothesis generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02729.Google Scholar
Wan, L., Zeiler, M., Zhang, S., Le Cun, Y., and Fergus, R. 2013. Regularization of neural networks using dropconnect. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1058–1066.Google Scholar
Weston, J., Bordes, A., Chopra, S., and Mikolov, T. 2015. Towards ai-complete question answering: a set of prerequisite toy tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.05698.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Mitra and Baral supplementary material

Mitra and Baral supplementary material 1

Download Mitra and Baral supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 188 KB
You have Access
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Incremental and Iterative Learning of Answer Set Programs from Mutually Distinct Examples
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Incremental and Iterative Learning of Answer Set Programs from Mutually Distinct Examples
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Incremental and Iterative Learning of Answer Set Programs from Mutually Distinct Examples
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *