Learning logic programs by explaining their failures
From MaRDI portal
Abstract: Scientists form hypotheses and experimentally test them. If a hypothesis fails (is refuted), scientists try to explain the failure to eliminate other hypotheses. The more precise the failure analysis the more hypotheses can be eliminated. Thus inspired, we introduce failure explanation techniques for inductive logic programming. Given a hypothesis represented as a logic program, we test it on examples. If a hypothesis fails, we explain the failure in terms of failing sub-programs. In case a positive example fails, we identify failing sub-programs at the granularity of literals. We introduce a failure explanation algorithm based on analysing branches of SLD-trees. We integrate a meta-interpreter based implementation of this algorithm with the test-stage of the Popper ILP system. We show that fine-grained failure analysis allows for learning fine-grained constraints on the hypothesis space. Our experimental results show that explaining failures can drastically reduce hypothesis space exploration and learning times.
Recommendations
Cites work
- Answering the ``why in answer set programming -- a survey of explanation approaches
- Best-effort inductive logic programming via fine-grained cost-based hypothesis generation. The Inspire system at the inductive logic programming competition
- Efficient program synthesis using constraint satisfaction in inductive logic programming
- Foundations of inductive logic programming
- General game playing
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3947593 (Why is no real title available?)
- Inductive general game playing
- Inductive logic programming
- Interactive concept-learning and constructive induction by analogy
- Learning explanatory rules from noisy data
- Learning programs by learning from failures
- Making sense of sensory input
- Top-down induction of first-order logical decision trees
Cited in
(5)- Learning programs by learning from failures
- Explanations as programs in probabilistic logic programming
- Generating contrastive explanations for inductive logic programming based on a near miss approach
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1149415 (Why is no real title available?)
- Towards machine learning as AGM-style belief change
This page was built for publication: Learning logic programs by explaining their failures
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q6053808)
