Abstract:Abstract 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.

Learning logic programs by combining programs

Learning logic programs through divide, constrain, and conquer

Learning logic programs by discovering where not to search

Learning big logical rules by joining small rules

Learning higher-order logic programs

Learning logic programs by finding minimal unsatisfiable subprograms

Learning programs by learning from failures

Parallel Constraint-Driven Inductive Logic Programming

Differentiable Inductive Logic Programming in High-Dimensional Space

Generalisation through Negation and Predicate Invention

A Survey on Inductive Logic Programming

Differentiable Inductive Logic Programming for Structured Examples

Conflict-Driven Inductive Logic Programming

Learning logic programs by explaining their failures

Research on inductive logic programming based learning method and its realization

A History of Probabilistic Inductive Logic Programming

Inductive Logic Boosting

SMT + ILP

Learning from Interpretation Transition Using Differentiable Logic Programming Semantics

Differentiable Logic Programming for Probabilistic Reasoning

Program Synthesis using Inductive Logic Programming for the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus