Induction of Non-Monotonic Logic Programs to Explain Boosted Tree Models Using LIME

We present a heuristic based algorithm to induce \textit{nonmonotonic} logic programs that will explain the behavior of XGBoost trained classifiers. We use the technique based on the LIME approach to locally select the most important features contributing to the classification decision. Then, in order to explain the model's global behavior, we propose the LIME-FOLD algorithm ---a heuristic-based inductive logic programming (ILP) algorithm capable of learning non-monotonic logic programs---that we apply to a transformed dataset produced by LIME. Our proposed approach is agnostic to the choice of the ILP algorithm. Our experiments with UCI standard benchmarks suggest a significant improvement in terms of classification evaluation metrics. Meanwhile, the number of induced rules dramatically decreases compared to ALEPH, a state-of-the-art ILP system

Induction of First-Order Decision Lists: Results on Learning the Past Tense of English Verbs

This paper presents a method for inducing logic programs from examples that learns a new class of concepts called first-order decision lists, defined as ordered lists of clauses each ending in a cut. The method, called FOIDL, is based on FOIL (Quinlan, 1990) but employs intensional background knowledge and avoids the need for explicit negative examples. It is particularly useful for problems that involve rules with specific exceptions, such as learning the past-tense of English verbs, a task widely studied in the context of the symbolic/connectionist debate. FOIDL is able to learn concise, accurate programs for this problem from significantly fewer examples than previous methods (both connectionist and symbolic).Comment: See http://www.jair.org/ for any accompanying file

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