Abstract
Learning interpretable models from data is stated as one of the main challenges of AI. The goal of logic-based learning is to compute interpretable (logic) programs that explain labelled examples in the context of given background knowledge. This tutorial introduces recent advances of logic-based learning, specifically learning non-monotonic logic programs under the answer set semantics. We introduce several learning frameworks and algorithms, which allow for learning highly expressive programs, containing rules representing non-determinism, choice, exceptions, constraints and preferences. Throughout the tutorial, we put a strong emphasis on the expressive power of the learning systems and frameworks, explaining why some systems are incapable of learning particular classes of programs.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As the notions had not been defined at the time, they did not call it cautious induction, but the definitions are the same.
- 2.
The original definitions of brave and cautious induction did not consider atoms which should not be present in an answer set (negative examples). Publicly available algorithms that realise brave induction, on the other hand, do allow for negative examples. We therefore upgrade the definitions in this tutorial to allow negative examples. Note that a negative example \(\mathtt {e}\) can be easily simulated by adding a rule to the background knowledge and giving \(\mathtt {a}\) as a positive example (where \(\mathtt {a}\) is a new atom that does not appear anywhere in the original task).
- 3.
This is a slight simplification. In the ASPAL algorithm, this is a choice rule using conditional literals, in order to delegate the grounding of the possible constants to the ASP solver. The ground version of ASPAL’s choice rule is identical to the one presented in this definition.
- 4.
- 5.
A graph is Hamiltonian if it contains a cycle that visits each node exactly once.
- 6.
- 7.
In Algorithm 1.1 the set Relevant is a pair of sets of examples, the first set being relevant positive examples and the second set relevant negative examples. The notation on Line 5 means to add example re to the appropriate set, depending on whether it is a positive or a negative example.
- 8.
Note that to avoid cumbersome notation, we denote this \(E_{LAS}\) rather than \(E_{ILP_{LAS}}\).
- 9.
In Table 1 the following two notations are used. For programs P and Q the relation \(P\equiv ^{s}Q\) means that for any program R \(AS(P \cup R) = AS(Q \cup R)\) and for a program P \(\mathcal {E}_c(BP)\) is the set of conjunctions of literals in every answer set of P.
References
Athakravi, D.: Inductive logic programming using bounded hypothesis space. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2015)
Athakravi, D., Corapi, D., Broda, K., Russo, A.: Learning through hypothesis refinement using answer set programming. In: Zaverucha, G., Santos Costa, V., Paes, A. (eds.) ILP 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8812, pp. 31–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44923-3_3
Blockeel, H., De Raedt, L.: Top-down induction of first-order logical decision trees. Artif. Intell. 101(1), 285–297 (1998)
Brain, M., Cliffe, O., De Vos, M.: A pragmatic programmer’s guide to answer set programming. In: Answer Set Programming, p. 49 (2009)
Corapi, D., Russo, A.: ASPAL. Proof of soundness and completeness. Technical report, Department of Computing (DTR11-5), Imperial College, London (2011)
Corapi, D., Russo, A., Lupu, E.: Inductive logic programming as abductive search. In: ICLP (Technical Communications), pp. 54–63 (2010)
Corapi, D., Russo, A., Lupu, E.: Inductive logic programming in answer set programming. In: Muggleton, S.H., Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A., Lisi, F.A. (eds.) ILP 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7207, pp. 91–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31951-8_12
Dastani, M., Jacobs, N., Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Modeling user preferences and mediating agents in electronic commerce. In: Dignum, F., Sierra, C. (eds.) Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1991, pp. 163–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44682-6_10
Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T.: Answer set programming: a primer. In: Tessaris, S., et al. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2009. LNCS, vol. 5689, pp. 40–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03754-2_2
Erdem, E., Gelfond, M., Leone, N.: Applications of answer set programming. AI Mag. 37(3), 53–68 (2016)
Fürnkranz, J., Hüllermeier, E.: Pairwise preference learning and ranking. In: Lavrač, N., Gamberger, D., Blockeel, H., Todorovski, L. (eds.) ECML 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2837, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39857-8_15
Geisler, B., Ha, V., Haddawy, P.: Modeling user preferences via theory refinement. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 87–90. ACM (2001)
Gelfond, M., Kahl, Y.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents: The Answer-Set Programming Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: ICLP/SLP, vol. 88, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)
Horváth, T.: A model of user preference learning for content-based recommender systems. Comput. Inform. 28(4), 453–481 (2012)
Inoue, K., Kudoh, Y.: Learning extended logic programs. In: IJCAI, no. 1, pp. 176–181 (1997)
Katzouris, N., Artikis, A., Paliouras, G.: Incremental learning of event definitions with inductive logic programming. Mach. Learn. 100(2–3), 555–585 (2015)
Kazmi, M., Schüller, P., Saygın, Y.: Improving scalability of inductive logic programming via pruning and best-effort optimisation. Expert Syst. Appl. 87, 291–303 (2017)
Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Gener. Comput. 4(1), 67–95 (1986)
Law, M.: Inductive learning of answer set programs. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2018)
Law, M., Russo, A., Broda, K.: Inductive learning of answer set programs. In: Fermé, E., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8761, pp. 311–325. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_22
Law, M., Russo, A., Broda, K.: Learning weak constraints in answer set programming. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 15(4–5), 511–525 (2015)
Law, M., Russo, A., Broda, K.: Simplified reduct for choice rules in ASP. Technical report, Department of Computing (DTR2015-2), Imperial College London (2015)
Law, M., Russo, A., Broda, K.: Iterative learning of answer set programs from context dependent examples. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 16(5–6), 834–848 (2016)
Law, M., Russo, A., Broda, K.: The complexity and generality of learning answer set programs. Artif. Intell. 259, 110–146 (2018)
Law, M., Russo, A., Broda, K.: Inductive learning of answer set programs from noisy examples. In: Advances in Cognitive Systems (2018)
Mueller, E.T.: Commonsense Reasoning: An Event Calculus Based Approach. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2014)
Muggleton, S.: Inductive logic programming. New Gener. Comput. 8(4), 295–318 (1991)
Muggleton, S.: Inverse entailment and progol. New Gener. Comput. 13(3–4), 245–286 (1995)
Muggleton, S., et al.: ILP turns 20. Mach. Learn. 86(1), 3–23 (2012)
Nogueira, M., Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M., Watson, R., Barry, M.: An A-Prolog decision support system for the space shuttle. In: Ramakrishnan, I.V. (ed.) PADL 2001. LNCS, vol. 1990, pp. 169–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45241-9_12
Nuffelen, B.: Abductive constraint logic programming: implementation and applications. Ph.D. thesis, K.U. Leuven (2004)
Otero, R.P.: Induction of stable models. In: Rouveirol, C., Sebag, M. (eds.) ILP 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2157, pp. 193–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44797-0_16
Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational Complexity. Wiley, New York (2003)
Ray, O.: Hybrid abductive inductive learning. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2005)
Ray, O.: Nonmonotonic abductive inductive learning. J. Appl. Log. 7(3), 329–340 (2009)
Ray, O., Broda, K., Russo, A.: Hybrid abductive inductive learning: a generalisation of progol. In: Horváth, T., Yamamoto, A. (eds.) ILP 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2835, pp. 311–328. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39917-9_21
Ricca, F., et al.: A logic-based system for e-tourism. Fundam. Inform. 105(1–2), 35–55 (2010)
Sakama, C.: Inverse entailment in nonmonotonic logic programs. In: Cussens, J., Frisch, A. (eds.) ILP 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1866, pp. 209–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44960-4_13
Sakama, C.: Nonmonotomic inductive logic programming. In: Eiter, T., Faber, W., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) LPNMR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2173, pp. 62–80. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45402-0_5
Sakama, C., Inoue, K.: Brave induction: a logical framework for learning from incomplete information. Mach. Learn. 76(1), 3–35 (2009)
Seitzer, J., Buckley, J.P., Pan, Y.: INDED: a distributed knowledge-based learning system. IEEE Intell. Syst. Appl. 15(5), 38–46 (2000)
Soininen, T., Niemelä, I.: Developing a declarative rule language for applications in product configuration. In: Gupta, G. (ed.) PADL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1551, pp. 305–319. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49201-1_21
Srinivasan, A.: The Aleph Manual. Machine Learning at the Computing Laboratory, Oxford University (2001)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Law, M., Russo, A., Broda, K. (2019). Logic-Based Learning of Answer Set Programs. In: Krötzsch, M., Stepanova, D. (eds) Reasoning Web. Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11810. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31423-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31423-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31422-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31423-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)