Advertisement

Typed Meta-interpretive Learning of Logic Programs

  • Rolf MorelEmail author
  • Andrew Cropper
  • C.-H. Luke Ong
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11468)

Abstract

Meta-interpretive learning (MIL) is a form of inductive logic programming that learns logic programs from background knowledge and examples. We claim that adding types to MIL can improve learning performance. We show that type checking can reduce the MIL hypothesis space by a cubic factor. We introduce two typed MIL systems: Metagol\(_{T}\) and HEXMIL\(_{T}\), implemented in Prolog and Answer Set Programming (ASP), respectively. Both systems support polymorphic types and can infer the types of invented predicates. Our experimental results show that types can substantially reduce learning times.

References

  1. 1.
    Albarghouthi, A., Koutris, P., Naik, M., Smith, C.: Constraint-based synthesis of datalog programs. In: Beck, J.C. (ed.) CP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10416, pp. 689–706. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66158-2_44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blumer, A., Ehrenfeucht, A., Haussler, D., Warmuth, M.: Learnability and the Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension. J. ACM 36(4), 929–965 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bridewell, W., Todorovski, L.: Learning declarative bias. In: Blockeel, H., Ramon, J., Shavlik, J., Tadepalli, P. (eds.) ILP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4894, pp. 63–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78469-2_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campero, A., Pareja, A., Klinger, T., Tenenbaum, J., Riedel, S.: Logical rule induction and theory learning using neural theorem proving. ArXiv e-prints, September 2018Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Costa, V.S., Rocha, R., Damas, L.: The YAP Prolog system. TPLP 12(1–2), 5–34 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cropper, A.: Efficiently learning efficient programs. Ph.D. thesis. Imperial College London, UK (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cropper, A., Muggleton, S.H.: Learning efficient logical robot strategies involving composable objects. In: Yang, Q., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25–31 July 2015, pp. 3423–3429. AAAI Press (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cropper, A., Muggleton, S.H.: Learning higher-order logic programs through abstraction and invention. In: Kambhampati, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2016, New York, NY, USA, 9–15 July 2016, pp. 1418–1424. IJCAI/AAAI Press (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cropper, A., Muggleton, S.H.: Metagol system (2016). https://github.com/metagol/metagol
  10. 10.
    Cropper, A., Muggleton, S.H.: Learning efficient logic programs. Mach. Learn. 1–21 (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cropper, A., Tourret, S.: Derivation reduction of metarules in meta-interpretive learning. In: Riguzzi, F., Bellodi, E., Zese, R. (eds.) ILP 2018. LNCS, vol. 11105, pp. 1–21. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99960-9_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Evans, R., Grefenstette, E.: Learning explanatory rules from noisy data. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 61, 1–64 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farquhar, C., Grov, G., Cropper, A., Muggleton, S., Bundy, A.: Typed meta-interpretive learning for proof strategies. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1636, pp. 17–32 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frankle, J., Osera, P., Walker, D., Zdancewic, S.: Example-directed synthesis: a type-theoretic interpretation. In: Bodík, R., Majumdar, R. (ed.) Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2016, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, 20–22 January 2016, pp. 802–815. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.T.: Potassco: the Potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Commun. 24(2), 107–124 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaminski, T., Eiter, T., Inoue, K.: Exploiting answer set programming with external sources for meta-interpretive learning. TPLP 18(3–4), 571–588 (2018)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Law, M., Russo, A., Broda, K.: Inductive learning of answer set programs. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS, vol. 8761, pp. 311–325. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lovas, W., Pfenning, F.: Refinement types for logical frameworks and their interpretation as proof irrelevance. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 6(4) (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manna, Z., Waldinger, R.J.: A deductive approach to program synthesis. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 2(1), 90–121 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Muggleton, S.: Inductive logic programming. New Gener. Comput. 8(4), 295–318 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muggleton, S.: Inverse entailment and Progol. New Gener. Comput. 13(3&4), 245–286 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Muggleton, S.H., Lin, D., Pahlavi, N., Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A.: Meta-interpretive learning: application to grammatical inference. Mach. Learn. 94(1), 25–49 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muggleton, S.H., Lin, D., Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A.: Meta-interpretive learning of higher-order dyadic datalog: predicate invention revisited. Mach. Learn. 100(1), 49–73 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mycroft, A., O’Keefe, R.A.: A polymorphic type system for Prolog. Artif. Intell. 23(3), 295–307 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nadathur, G., Miller, D.: An overview of lambda-PROLOG. In: Kowalski, R.A., Bowen, K.A. (eds.) Logic Programming, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium, Seattle, Washington, USA, 15–19 August 1988, vol. 2, pp. 810–827. MIT Press (1988)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Osera, P., Zdancewic, S.: Type-and-example-directed program synthesis. In: Grove, D., Blackburn, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 36th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, Portland, OR, USA, 15–17 June 2015, pp. 619–630. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Polikarpova, N., Kuraj, I., Solar-Lezama, A.: Program synthesis from polymorphic refinement types. In: Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2016, New York, NY, USA, pp. 522–538. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Raedt, L.: Declarative modeling for machine learning and data mining. In: Bshouty, N.H., Stoltz, G., Vayatis, N., Zeugmann, T. (eds.) ALT 2012. LNCS, vol. 7568, pp. 12–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34106-9_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ray, O.: Nonmonotonic abductive inductive learning. J. Appl. Log. 7(3), 329–340 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schrijvers, T., Costa, V.S., Wielemaker, J., Demoen, B.: Towards typed Prolog. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 693–697. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89982-2_59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schüller, P., Benz, M.: Best-effort inductive logic programming via fine-grained cost-based hypothesis generation - the inspire system at the inductive logic programming competition. Mach. Learn. 107(7), 1141–1169 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Si, X., Lee, W., Zhang, R., Albarghouthi, A., Koutris, P., Naik, M.: Syntax-guided synthesis of datalog programs. In: Leavens, G.T., Garcia, A., Pasareanu, C.S. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2018, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, 04–09 November 2018, pp. 515–527. ACM (2018)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singh, R., Gulwani, S.: Synthesizing number transformations from input-output examples. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 634–651. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Somogyi, Z., Henderson, F.J., Conway, T.C.: Mercury, an efficient purely declarative logic programming language. Aust. Comput. Sci. Commun. 17, 499–512 (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Srinivasan, A.: The ALEPH manual. Machine Learning at the Computing Laboratory, Oxford University (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stahl, I.: The appropriateness of predicate invention as bias shift operation in ILP. Mach. Learn. 20(1–2), 95–117 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang, W.Y., Mazaitis, K., Cohen, W.W.: Structure learning via parameter learning. In: Li, J., Wang, X.S., Garofalakis, M.N., Soboroff, I., Suel, T., Wang, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2014, Shanghai, China, 3–7 November 2014, pp. 1199–1208. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wielemaker, J., Schrijvers, T., Triska, M., Lager, T.: SWI-Prolog. TPLP 12(1–2), 67–96 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations