Best-effort inductive logic programming via fine-grained cost-based hypothesis generation
- 148 Downloads
We describe the Inspire system which participated in the first competition on inductive logic programming (ILP). Inspire is based on answer set programming (ASP). The distinguishing feature of Inspire is an ASP encoding for hypothesis space generation: given a set of facts representing the mode bias, and a set of cost configuration parameters, each answer set of this encoding represents a single rule that is considered for finding a hypothesis that entails the given examples. Compared with state-of-the-art methods that use the length of the rule body as a metric for rule complexity, our approach permits a much more fine-grained specification of the shape of hypothesis candidate rules. The Inspire system iteratively increases the rule cost limit and thereby increases the search space until it finds a suitable hypothesis. The system searches for a hypothesis that entails a single example at a time, utilizing an ASP encoding derived from the encoding used in XHAIL. We perform experiments with the development and test set of the ILP competition. For comparison we also adapted the ILASP system to process competition instances. Experimental results show that the cost parameters for the hypothesis search space are an important factor for finding hypotheses to competition instances within tight resource bounds.
KeywordsInductive logic programming Answer set programming Hypothesis generation Rule complexity Best-effort
This work has been supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under Grant Agreement 114E777, by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under Grant Agreement P27730, and by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) under Grant Agreement 861263.
- Alviano, M., Dodaro, C., Marques-Silva, J., & Ricca, F. (2015). Optimum stable model search: Algorithms and implementation. Journal of Logic and Computation, article number exv061.Google Scholar
- Andres, B., Kaufmann, B., Matheis, O., & Schaub, T. (2012). Unsatisfiability-based optimization in clasp. In International conference on logic programming (ICLP), technical communications (pp. 212–221).Google Scholar
- Apt, K. R., Blair, H. A., & Walker, A. (1988). Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In J. Minker (Ed.), Foundations of deductive databases and logic programming (pp. 89–148). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- Athakravi, D., Corapi, D., Broda, K., & Russo, A. (2014). Learning through hypothesis refinement using answer set programming. In G. Zaverucha, V. Santos Costa, & A. Paes (Eds.), Inductive logic programming (pp. 31–46). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Calimeri, F., Faber, W., Gebser, M., Ianni, G., Kaminski, R., Krennwallner, T., et al. (2012). ASP-Core-2 input language format. Tech. rep., ASP Standardization Working Group.Google Scholar
- Corapi, D., Russo, A., & Lupu, E. (2010). Inductive logic programming as abductive search. In: International conference on logic programming (ICLP), technical communications, (pp. 54–63).Google Scholar
- Flach, P. A. (1993). Predicate invention in inductive data engineering. In European conference on machine learning (EMCL) (pp. 83–94).Google Scholar
- Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., & Schaub, T. (2012a). Answer set solving in practice. Morgan Claypool.Google Scholar
- Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., König, A., & Schaub, T. (2011). Advances in gringo series 3. In International conference on logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning (LPNMR) (pp. 345–351).Google Scholar
- Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1988). The stable model semantics for logic programming. In International conference and symposium on logic programming (ICLP/SLP) (pp. 1070–1080).Google Scholar
- Law, M., Russo, A., & Broda, K. (2014). Inductive learning of answer set programs. In European conference on logics in artificial intelligence (JELIA) (pp. 311–325).Google Scholar
- Law, M., Russo, A., & Broda, K. (2017). Inductive learning of answer set programs v3.1.0 user manual. Tech. rep., Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Department of Computing.Google Scholar
- Law, M., Russo, A., Cussens, J., & Broda, K. (2016b). The 2016 competition on inductive logic programming. Retrieved March 29, 2017, http://ilp16.doc.ic.ac.uk/competition.
- Lifschitz, V. (2008). What is answer set programming? In AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1594–1597).Google Scholar
- Mitra, A., & Baral, C. (2016). Addressing a question answering challenge by combining statistical methods with inductive rule learning and reasoning. In D. Schuurmans & M. P. Wellman (Eds.), Association for the advancement of artificial intelligence (pp. 2779–2785). AAAI Press.Google Scholar
- Muggleton, S. (1987). Duce, an oracle-based approach to constructive induction. In International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 287–292).Google Scholar
- Muggleton, S., & Buntine, W. (1992). Machine invention of first-order predicates by inverting resolution. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on machine learning (pp. 339–352).Google Scholar
- Otero, R. P. (2001). Induction of stable models. In Conference on inductive logic programming (pp. 193–205).Google Scholar