The ILASP system for Inductive Learning of Answer Set Programs

The goal of Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) is to learn a program that explains a set of examples in the context of some pre-existing background knowledge. Until recently, most research on ILP targeted learning Prolog programs. Our own ILASP system instead learns Answer Set Programs, including normal rules, choice rules and hard and weak constraints. Learning such expressive programs widens the applicability of ILP considerably; for example, enabling preference learning, learning common-sense knowledge, including defaults and exceptions, and learning non-deterministic theories. In this paper, we first give a general overview of ILASP's learning framework and its capabilities. This is followed by a comprehensive summary of the evolution of the ILASP system, presenting the strengths and weaknesses of each version, with a particular emphasis on scalability.

[1]  Krysia Broda,et al.  Iterative Learning of Answer Set Programs from Context Dependent Examples , 2016, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[2]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  Incremental learning of event definitions with Inductive Logic Programming , 2014, Machine Learning.

[3]  Jorge Lobo,et al.  FastLAS: Scalable Inductive Logic Programming Incorporating Domain-Specific Optimisation Criteria , 2020, AAAI.

[4]  Dana Angluin,et al.  Learning Regular Sets from Queries and Counterexamples , 1987, Inf. Comput..

[5]  Richard Evans,et al.  Inductive general game playing , 2019, Machine Learning.

[6]  Oliver Ray,et al.  Nonmonotonic abductive inductive learning , 2009, J. Appl. Log..

[7]  Stephen Muggleton,et al.  Inverse entailment and progol , 1995, New Generation Computing.

[8]  Krysia Broda,et al.  Induction of Subgoal Automata for Reinforcement Learning , 2019, AAAI.

[9]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Applications of Answer Set Programming , 2016, AI Mag..

[10]  Krysia Broda,et al.  The complexity and generality of learning answer set programs , 2018, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Jorge Lobo,et al.  Representing and Learning Grammars in Answer Set Programming , 2019, AAAI.

[12]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Multi-shot ASP solving with clingo , 2017, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[13]  Marius Thomas Lindauer,et al.  Potassco: The Potsdam Answer Set Solving Collection , 2011, AI Commun..

[14]  Krysia Broda,et al.  Machine Comprehension of Text Using Combinatory Categorial Grammar and Answer Set Programs , 2017, COMMONSENSE.

[15]  Krysia Broda,et al.  Learning weak constraints in answer set programming , 2015, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[16]  Stephen Muggleton,et al.  Meta-interpretive learning of higher-order dyadic datalog: predicate invention revisited , 2013, Machine Learning.

[17]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  Answer set programming at a glance , 2011, Commun. ACM.

[18]  Alessandra Russo,et al.  Inductive Logic Programming in Answer Set Programming , 2011, ILP.

[19]  Krysia Broda,et al.  Inductive Learning of Answer Set Programs from Noisy Examples , 2018, ArXiv.

[20]  Krysia Broda,et al.  Inductive Learning of Answer Set Programs , 2014, JELIA.

[21]  Krysia Broda,et al.  Hybrid Abductive Inductive Learning: A Generalisation of Progol , 2003, ILP.

[22]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Theory Solving Made Easy with Clingo 5 , 2016, ICLP.

[23]  Gerhard Friedrich,et al.  Industrial Applications of Answer Set Programming , 2018, KI - Künstliche Intelligenz.

[24]  Alessandra Russo,et al.  Inductive Logic Programming as Abductive Search , 2010, ICLP.

[25]  Chiaki Sakama,et al.  Brave induction: a logical framework for learning from incomplete information , 2009, Machine Learning.

[26]  Krysia Broda,et al.  Learning Through Hypothesis Refinement Using Answer Set Programming , 2013, ILP.