Download presentation

Published byClaire Sandoval Modified over 4 years ago

1
**Artificial Intelligence 14. Inductive Logic Programming**

Course V231 Department of Computing Imperial College, London © Simon Colton

2
**Inductive Logic Programming**

Representation scheme used Logic Programs Need to Recap logic programs Specify the learning problem Specify the operators Worry about search considerations Also Go through a session with Progol Look at applications

3
**Remember Logic Programs?**

Subset of first order logic All sentences are Horn clauses Implications where a conjunction of literals (body) Imply a single goal literal (head) Single facts can also be Horn clauses With no body A logic program consists of: A set of Horn clauses ILP theory and practice is highly formal Best way to progress and to show progress

4
**Horn Clauses and Entailment**

Writing Horn Clauses: h(X,Y) b1(X,Y) b2(X) ... bn(X,Y,Z) Also replace conjunctions with a capital letter h(X,Y) b1, B Assume lower case letters are single literals Entailment: When one logic program, L1 can be proved using another logic program L2 We write: L2 L1 Note that if L2 L1 This does not mean that L2 entails that L1 is false

5
**Logic Programs in ILP Start with background information,**

As a logic program labelled B Also start with a set of positive examples of the concept required to learn Represented as a logic program labelled E+ And a set of negative examples of the concept required to learn Represented as a logic program labelled E- ILP system will learn a hypothesis Which is also a logic program, labelled H

6
**Explaining Examples Example A Hypothesis H explains example e**

If logic program e is entailed by H So, we prove e is true Example H: class(A, fish) :- has_gills(A) B: has_gills(trout) Positive example: class(trout, fish) Entailed by H B taken together Note that negative examples can also be entailed By the hypothesis and background taken together

7
**Prior Conditions on the Problem**

Problem must be satisfiable: Prior satisfiability: e E- (B e) So, the background does not entail any negative example (if it did, no hypothesis could rectify this) This does not mean that B entails that e is false Problem must not already be solved: Prior necessity: e E+ (B e) If all the positive examples were entailed by the background, then we could take H = B.

8
**Posterior Conditions on Hypothesis**

Taken with B, H should entail all positives Posterior sufficiency: e E+ (B H e) Taken with B, H should entail no negatives Posterior satisfiability: e E- (B H e) If the hypothesis meets these two conditions It will have perfectly solved the problem Summary: All positives can be derived from B H But no negatives can be derived from B H

9
**Problem Specification**

Given logic programs E+, E-, B Which meet the prior satisfiability and necessity conditions Learn a logic program H Such that B H meet the posterior satisfiabilty and sufficiency conditions

10
**Moving in Logic Program Space**

Can use rules of inference to find new LPs Deductive rules of inference Modus ponens, resolution, etc. Map from the general to the specific i.e., from L1 to L2 such that L1 L2 Look today at inductive rules of inference Will invert the resolution rule Four ways to do this Map from the specific to the general i.e., from L1 to L2 such that L2 L1 Inductive inference rules are not sound

11
**Inverting Deductive Rules**

Man alternates 2 hats every day Whenever he wears hat X, he gets a pain, hat Y is OK Knows that a hat having a pin in causes pain Infers that his hat has a pin in it Looks and finds the hat X does have a pin in it Uses Modus Ponens to prove that His pain is caused by a pin in hat X Original inference (pin in hat X) was unsound Could be many reasons for the pain in his head Was induced so that Modus Ponens could be used

12
**Inverting Resolution 1. Absorption rule of inference**

Rule written same as for deductive rules Input above the line, and the inference below line Remember that q is a single literal And that A, B are conjunctions of literals Can prove that the original clauses Follow from the hypothesised clause by resolution

13
**Proving Given clauses Exercise: translate into CNF Use the v diagram,**

And convince yourselves Use the v diagram, because we don’t want to write as a rule of deduction Say that Absorption is a V-operator

14
Example of Absorption

15
Example of Absorption

16
**Inverting Resolution 2. Identification**

Rule of inference: Resolution Proof:

17
**Inverting Resolution 3. Intra Construction**

Rule of inference: Resolution Proof:

18
**Predicate Invention Say that Intra-construction is a W-operator**

This has introduced the new symbol q q is a predicate which is resolved away In the resolution proof ILP systems using intra-construction Perform predicate invention Toy example: When learning the insertion sort algorithm ILP system (Progol) invents concept of list insertion

19
**Inverting Resolution 4. Inter Construction**

Rule of inference: Resolution Proof: Predicate Invention Again

20
**Generic Search Strategy**

Assume this kind of search: A set of current hypothesis, QH, is maintained At each search step, a hypothesis H is chosen from QH H is expanded using inference rules Which adds more current hypotheses to QH Search stops when a termination condition is met by a hypothesis Some (of many) questions: Initialisation, choice of H, termination, how to expand…

21
**Search (Extra Logical) Considerations Generality and Speciality**

There is a great deal of variation in Search strategies between ILP programs Definition of generality/speciality A hypothesis G is more general than hypothesis S iff G S. S is said to be more specific than G A deductive rule of inference maps a conjunction of clauses G onto a conjunction of clauses S, such that G S. These are specialisation rules (Modus Ponens, resolution…) An inductive rule of inference maps a conjunction of clauses S onto a conjunction of clauses G, such that G S. These are generalisation rules (absorption, identification…)

22
**Search Direction ILP systems differ in their overall search strategy**

From Specific to General Start with most specific hypothesis Which explain a small number (possibly 1) of positives Keep generalising to explain more positive examples Using generalisation rules (inductive) such as inverse resolution Are careful not to allow any negatives to be explained From General to Specific Start with empty clause as hypothesis Which explains everything Keep specialising to exclude more and more negative examples Using specialisation rules (deductive) such as resolution Are careful to make sure all positives are still explained

23
**Pruning Remember that: If G is more general than S**

A set of current hypothesis, QH, is maintained And each hypothesis explains a set of pos/neg exs. If G is more general than S Then G will explain more (>=) examples than S When searching from specific to general Can prune any hypothesis which explains a negative Because further generalisation will not rectify this situation When searching from general to specific Can prune any hypothesis which doesn’t explain all positives Because further specialisation will not rectify this situation

24
**Ordering There will be many current hypothesis in QH to choose from.**

Which is chosen first? ILP systems use a probability distribution Which assigns a value P(H | B E) to each H A Bayesian measure is defined, based on The number of positive/negative examples explained When this is equal, ILP systems use A sophisticated Occam’s Razor Defined by Algorithmic Complexity theory or something similar

25
**Language Restrictions**

Another way to reduce the search Specify what format clauses in hypotheses are allowed to have One possibility Restrict the number of existential variables allowed Another possibility Be explicit about the nature of arguments in literals Which arguments in body literals are Instantiated (ground) terms Variables given in the head literal New variables See Progol’s mode declarations

26
**Example Session with Progol**

Animals dataset Learning task: learn rules which classify animals into fish, mammal, reptile, bird Rules based on attributes of the animals Physical attributes: number of legs, covering (fur, feathers, etc.) Other attributes: produce milk, lay eggs, etc. 16 animals are supplied 7 attributes are supplied

27
**Input file: mode declarations**

Mode declarations given at the top of the file These are language restrictions Declaration about the head of hypothesis clauses :- modeh(1,class(+animal,#class)) Means hypothesis will be given an animal variable and will return a ground instantiation of class Declaration about the body clauses :- modeb(1,has_legs(+animal,#nat)) Means that it is OK to use has_legs predicate in body And that it will take the variable animal supplied in the head and return an instantiated natural number

28
**Input file: type information**

Next comes information about types of object Each ground variable (word) must be typed animal(dog), animal(dolphin), … etc. class(mammal), class(fish), …etc. covering(hair), covering(none), … etc. habitat(land), habitat(air), … etc.

29
**Input file: background concepts**

Next comes the logic program B, containing these predicates: has_covering/2, has_legs/2, has_milk/1, homeothermic/1, habitat/2, has_eggs/1, has_gills/1 E.g., has_covering(dog, hair), has_milk(platypus), has_legs(penguin, 2), homeothermic(dog), habitat(eagle, air), habitat(eagle, land), has_eggs(eagle), has_gills(trout), etc.

30
**Input file: Examples Finally, E+ and E- are supplied Positives:**

class(lizard, reptile) class(trout, fish) class(bat, mammal), etc. Negatives: :- class(trout, mammal) :- class(herring, mammal) :- class(platypus, reptile), etc.

31
**Output file: generalisations**

We see Progol starting with the most specific hypothesis for the case when animal is a reptile Starts with the lizard reptile and finds most specific: class(A, reptile) :- has_covering(A,scales), has_legs(A,4), has_eggs(A),habitat(A, land) Then finds 12 generalisations of this Examples class(A, reptile) :- has_covering(A, scales). class(A, reptile) :- has_eggs(A), has_legs(A, 4). Then chooses the best one: class(A, reptile) :- has_covering(A, scales), has_legs(A, 4). This process is repeated for fish, mammal and bird

32
**Output file: Final Hypothesis**

class(A, reptile) :- has_covering(A,scales), has_legs(A,4). class(A, mammal) :- homeothermic(A), has_milk(A). class(A, fish) :- has_legs(A,0), has_eggs(A). class(A, reptile) :- has_covering(A,scales), habitat(A, land). class(A, bird) :- has_covering(A,feathers) Gets 100% predictive accuracy on training set

33
**Some Applications of ILP (See notes for details)**

Finite Element Mesh Design Predictive Toxicology Protein Structure Prediction Generating Program Invariants

Similar presentations

OK

Computer Science CPSC 322 Lecture 25 Top Down Proof Procedure (Ch 5.2.2)

Computer Science CPSC 322 Lecture 25 Top Down Proof Procedure (Ch 5.2.2)

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google