Advertisement

Learning Dynamics with Synchronous, Asynchronous and General Semantics

  • Tony Ribeiro
  • Maxime Folschette
  • Morgan Magnin
  • Olivier Roux
  • Katsumi Inoue
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11105)

Abstract

Learning from interpretation transition (LFIT) automatically constructs a model of the dynamics of a system from the observation of its state transitions. So far, the systems that LFIT handles are restricted to synchronous deterministic dynamics, i.e., all variables update their values at the same time and, for each state of the system, there is only one possible next state. However, other dynamics exist in the field of logical modeling, in particular the asynchronous semantics which is widely used to model biological systems. In this paper, we focus on a method that learns the dynamics of the system independently of its semantics. For this purpose, we propose a modeling of multi-valued systems as logic programs in which a rule represents what can occur rather than what will occur. This modeling allows us to represent non-determinism and to propose an extension of LFIT in the form of a semantics free algorithm to learn from discrete multi-valued transitions, regardless of their update schemes. We show through theoretical results that synchronous, asynchronous and general semantics are all captured by this method. Practical evaluation is performed on randomly generated systems and benchmarks from biological literature to study the scalability of this new algorithm regarding the three aforementioned semantics.

Keywords

Dynamical semantics Learning from interpretation transition Dynamical systems Inductive logic programming 

References

  1. 1.
    Blair, H.A., Subrahmanian, V.: Paraconsistent foundations for logic programming. J. Non-classical Logic 5(2), 45–73 (1988)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blair, H.A., Subrahmanian, V.: Paraconsistent logic programming. Theor. Comput. Sci. 68(2), 135–154 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chatain, T., Haar, S., Paulevé, L.: Boolean networks: beyond generalized asynchronicity. In: Baetens, J.M., Kutrib, M. (eds.) AUTOMATA 2018. LNCS, vol. 10875, pp. 29–42. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92675-9_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubrova, E., Teslenko, M.: A SAT-based algorithm for finding attractors in synchronous boolean networks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. (TCBB) 8(5), 1393–1399 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fitting, M.: Bilattices and the semantics of logic programming. J. Logic Program. 11(2), 91–116 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garg, A., Di Cara, A., Xenarios, I., Mendoza, L., De Micheli, G.: Synchronous versus asynchronous modeling of gene regulatory networks. Bioinformatics 24(17), 1917–1925 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ginsberg, M.L.: Multivalued logics: a uniform approach to reasoning in artificial intelligence. Comput. Intell. 4(3), 265–316 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Inoue, K.: Logic programming for Boolean networks. In: IJCAI Proceedings-International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 22, p. 924 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Inoue, K., Ribeiro, T., Sakama, C.: Learning from interpretation transition. Mach. Learn. 94(1), 51–79 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kifer, M., Subrahmanian, V.: Theory of generalized annotated logic programming and its applications. J. Logic Programm. 12(4), 335–367 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martınez, D., Alenya, G., Torras, C., Ribeiro, T., Inoue, K.: Learning relational dynamics of stochastic domains for planning. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martínez, D.M., Ribeiro, T., Inoue, K., Ribas, G.A., Torras, C.: Learning probabilistic action models from interpretation transitions. In: Proceedings of the Technical Communications of the 31st International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2015), pp. 1–14 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ribeiro, T., Inoue, K.: Learning prime implicant conditions from interpretation transition. In: Davis, J., Ramon, J. (eds.) ILP 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9046, pp. 108–125. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23708-4_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ribeiro, T., Magnin, M., Inoue, K., Sakama, C.: Learning delayed influences of biological systems. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2, 81 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ribeiro, T., Magnin, M., Inoue, K., Sakama, C.: Learning multi-valued biological models with delayed influence from time-series observations. In: 2015 IEEE 14th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), pp. 25–31, December 2015Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ribeiro, T., et al.: Inductive learning from state transitions over continuous domains. In: Lachiche, N., Vrain, C. (eds.) ILP 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10759, pp. 124–139. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78090-0_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Emden, M.H.: Quantitative deduction and its fixpoint theory. J. Logic Program. 3(1), 37–53 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tony Ribeiro
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Maxime Folschette
    • 3
  • Morgan Magnin
    • 1
    • 4
  • Olivier Roux
    • 1
  • Katsumi Inoue
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratoire des Sciences du Numérique de NantesNantesFrance
  2. 2.Pôle-EmploiSaumurFrance
  3. 3.Univ Rennes, Inria, CNRS, IRISA, IRSETRennesFrance
  4. 4.National Institute of InformaticsTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations