Learning programs by learning from failures

We describe an inductive logic programming (ILP) approach called learning from failures. In this approach, an ILP system (the learner) decomposes the learning problem into three separate stages: generate, test, and constrain. In the generate stage, the learner generates a hypothesis (a logic program) that satisfies a set of hypothesis constraints (constraints on the syntactic form of hypotheses). In the test stage, the learner tests the hypothesis against training examples. A hypothesis fails when it does not entail all the positive examples or entails a negative example. If a hypothesis fails, then, in the constrain stage, the learner learns constraints from the failed hypothesis to prune the hypothesis space, i.e. to constrain subsequent hypothesis generation. For instance, if a hypothesis is too general (entails a negative example), the constraints prune generalisations of the hypothesis. If a hypothesis is too specific (does not entail all the positive examples), the constraints prune specialisations of the hypothesis. This loop repeats until either (i) the learner finds a hypothesis that entails all the positive and none of the negative examples, or (ii) there are no more hypotheses to test. We introduce Popper, an ILP system that implements this approach by combining answer set programming and Prolog. Popper supports infinite problem domains, reasoning about lists and numbers, learning textually minimal programs, and learning recursive programs. Our experimental results on three domains (toy game problems, robot strategies, and list transformations) show that (i) constraints drastically improve learning performance, and (ii) Popper can outperform existing ILP systems, both in terms of predictive accuracies and learning times.Comment: Accepted for the machine learning journa

Inductive logic programming as satisfiability modulo theories

At the intersection of machine learning, program synthesis and automated reasoning lies the field of Inductive Logic Programming (ILP). The aim of ILP is to automatically learn relational programs from input/output examples, typically through logic-based techniques. Inspired by Karl Popper’s falsification perspective on science, this dissertation sets out a new approach to ILP: Learning From Failures (LFF). In science, starting from a huge set of a priori viable hypotheses, we select a hypothesis to test. This hypothesis typically gets falsified due to failing in some specific way. By examining the failure we learn that an entire space of related hypotheses is now ruled out. Having thus reduced our set of viable hypotheses, we subsequently select from just those that remain. LFF applies this methodology to program induction, codifying it as a three-stage loop. The generate stage maintains a formula whose satisfying assignments correspond to the set of viable hypotheses. The test stage takes a satisfying assignment, interprets it as a logic program and tests it against training examples – imperfect fit is considered a failure. The constrain stage turns a failure into constraints to add to the generate stage’s formula, thereby eliminating a class of hypotheses which will fail for the same reason. The thesis of this dissertation is three-fold. The first claim is that LFF frames the ILP problem as one of Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT). With the search for viable hypotheses handed-off to a SAT-solver, the test stage can be regarded as a theory solver collaborating with the SAT-solver, effectively making ILP’s notion of background knowledge into a (Horn) background theory. The second claim is that LFF’s three-stage loop is an effective basis for falsification-based program induction. Chapter 4 develops the above correspondence into a feature-rich and flexible three-stage ILP system. Experimental evidence is provided for this system going beyond the state-of-the-art in ILP, e.g., by supporting large hypothesis spaces and large domains. The third claim is that the LFF-as-SMT-perspective helps apply satisfiability solving techniques to ILP, in particular to reduce hypothesis space exploration. In Chapter 5, we show that SMT-based techniques for explaining conflicts have a natural analog in terms of explaining which parts of a hypothesis are responsible for its failure. In Chapter 6, we incorporate other theory solvers alongside the test stage to reason about the (satisfiability of) over-approximating properties of hypotheses. We show that both of these techniques can significantly reduce the number of iterations of the three-stage loop

A Bounded Search Space of Clausal Theories

In this paper the problem of induction of clausal theories through a search space consisting of theories is studied. We order the search space by an extension of -subsumption for theories, and nd a least generalization and a greatest specialization of theories. A most speci c theory is introduced, and we develop a re nement operator bounded by this theory