Neural Network architectures design by Cellular Automata evolution

4th Conference of Systemics Cybernetics and Informatics. Orlando, 23-26 July 2000The design of the architecture is a crucial step in the successful application of a neural network. However, the architecture design is basically, in most cases, a human experts job. The design depends heavily on both, the expert experience and on a tedious trial-and-error process. Therefore, the development of automatic methods to determine the architecture of feedforward neural networks is a field of interest in the neural network community. These methods are generally based on search techniques, as genetic algorithms, simulated annealing or evolutionary strategies. Most of the designed methods are based on direct representation of the parameters of the network. This representation does not allow scalability, so to represent large architectures very large structures are required. In this work, an indirect constructive encoding scheme is proposed to find optimal architectures of feed-forward neural networks. This scheme is based on cellular automata representations in order to increase the scalability of the method.Publicad

Using Program Synthesis for Program Analysis

In this paper, we identify a fragment of second-order logic with restricted quantification that is expressive enough to capture numerous static analysis problems (e.g. safety proving, bug finding, termination and non-termination proving, superoptimisation). We call this fragment the {\it synthesis fragment}. Satisfiability of a formula in the synthesis fragment is decidable over finite domains; specifically the decision problem is NEXPTIME-complete. If a formula in this fragment is satisfiable, a solution consists of a satisfying assignment from the second order variables to \emph{functions over finite domains}. To concretely find these solutions, we synthesise \emph{programs} that compute the functions. Our program synthesis algorithm is complete for finite state programs, i.e. every \emph{function} over finite domains is computed by some \emph{program} that we can synthesise. We can therefore use our synthesiser as a decision procedure for the synthesis fragment of second-order logic, which in turn allows us to use it as a powerful backend for many program analysis tasks. To show the tractability of our approach, we evaluate the program synthesiser on several static analysis problems.Comment: 19 pages, to appear in LPAR 2015. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1409.492

POWERPLAY: Training an Increasingly General Problem Solver by Continually Searching for the Simplest Still Unsolvable Problem

Most of computer science focuses on automatically solving given computational problems. I focus on automatically inventing or discovering problems in a way inspired by the playful behavior of animals and humans, to train a more and more general problem solver from scratch in an unsupervised fashion. Consider the infinite set of all computable descriptions of tasks with possibly computable solutions. The novel algorithmic framework POWERPLAY (2011) continually searches the space of possible pairs of new tasks and modifications of the current problem solver, until it finds a more powerful problem solver that provably solves all previously learned tasks plus the new one, while the unmodified predecessor does not. Wow-effects are achieved by continually making previously learned skills more efficient such that they require less time and space. New skills may (partially) re-use previously learned skills. POWERPLAY's search orders candidate pairs of tasks and solver modifications by their conditional computational (time & space) complexity, given the stored experience so far. The new task and its corresponding task-solving skill are those first found and validated. The computational costs of validating new tasks need not grow with task repertoire size. POWERPLAY's ongoing search for novelty keeps breaking the generalization abilities of its present solver. This is related to Goedel's sequence of increasingly powerful formal theories based on adding formerly unprovable statements to the axioms without affecting previously provable theorems. The continually increasing repertoire of problem solving procedures can be exploited by a parallel search for solutions to additional externally posed tasks. POWERPLAY may be viewed as a greedy but practical implementation of basic principles of creativity. A first experimental analysis can be found in separate papers [53,54].Comment: 21 pages, additional connections to previous work, references to first experiments with POWERPLA

Conformant Planning as a Case Study of Incremental QBF Solving

We consider planning with uncertainty in the initial state as a case study of incremental quantified Boolean formula (QBF) solving. We report on experiments with a workflow to incrementally encode a planning instance into a sequence of QBFs. To solve this sequence of incrementally constructed QBFs, we use our general-purpose incremental QBF solver DepQBF. Since the generated QBFs have many clauses and variables in common, our approach avoids redundancy both in the encoding phase and in the solving phase. Experimental results show that incremental QBF solving outperforms non-incremental QBF solving. Our results are the first empirical study of incremental QBF solving in the context of planning and motivate its use in other application domains.Comment: added reference to extended journal article; revision (camera-ready, to appear in the proceedings of AISC 2014, volume 8884 of LNAI, Springer

Learning Moore Machines from Input-Output Traces

The problem of learning automata from example traces (but no equivalence or membership queries) is fundamental in automata learning theory and practice. In this paper we study this problem for finite state machines with inputs and outputs, and in particular for Moore machines. We develop three algorithms for solving this problem: (1) the PTAP algorithm, which transforms a set of input-output traces into an incomplete Moore machine and then completes the machine with self-loops; (2) the PRPNI algorithm, which uses the well-known RPNI algorithm for automata learning to learn a product of automata encoding a Moore machine; and (3) the MooreMI algorithm, which directly learns a Moore machine using PTAP extended with state merging. We prove that MooreMI has the fundamental identification in the limit property. We also compare the algorithms experimentally in terms of the size of the learned machine and several notions of accuracy, introduced in this paper. Finally, we compare with OSTIA, an algorithm that learns a more general class of transducers, and find that OSTIA generally does not learn a Moore machine, even when fed with a characteristic sample

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

A recurrent neural network for classification of unevenly sampled variable stars

Astronomical surveys of celestial sources produce streams of noisy time series measuring flux versus time ("light curves"). Unlike in many other physical domains, however, large (and source-specific) temporal gaps in data arise naturally due to intranight cadence choices as well as diurnal and seasonal constraints. With nightly observations of millions of variable stars and transients from upcoming surveys, efficient and accurate discovery and classification techniques on noisy, irregularly sampled data must be employed with minimal human-in-the-loop involvement. Machine learning for inference tasks on such data traditionally requires the laborious hand-coding of domain-specific numerical summaries of raw data ("features"). Here we present a novel unsupervised autoencoding recurrent neural network (RNN) that makes explicit use of sampling times and known heteroskedastic noise properties. When trained on optical variable star catalogs, this network produces supervised classification models that rival other best-in-class approaches. We find that autoencoded features learned on one time-domain survey perform nearly as well when applied to another survey. These networks can continue to learn from new unlabeled observations and may be used in other unsupervised tasks such as forecasting and anomaly detection.Comment: 23 pages, 14 figures. The published version is at Nature Astronomy (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0321-z). Source code for models, experiments, and figures at https://github.com/bnaul/IrregularTimeSeriesAutoencoderPaper (Zenodo Code DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1045560