1 Introduction
Despite the tremendous success of the deep neural networks, they are still prone to some limitations. These systems, in general, do not construct any explicit and symbolic representation of the algorithm they learn. In particular, the learned algorithm is implicitly stored in thousands or even millions of weights, which is typically impossible for human agents to decipher or verify. Further, MLP networks are suitable when large training examples are available. Otherwise, they usually do not generalize well. One of the machine learning approaches that addresses these shortcomings is Inductive Logic Programming (ILP). In ILP, explicit rules and symbolic logical representations can be learned using only a few training examples. Further, the solutions usually generalize well.
The idea of using neural networks for learning ILP has attracted a lot of research in recent years ( Hölldobler et al. (1999); França et al. (2014); Serafini and Garcez (2016); Evans and Grefenstette (2018)). Most neural ILP solvers work by propositionalization of the relational data and use the neural networks for the inference tasks. As such, they usually are superior to classical ILP solvers in handling missing or uncertain data. However, in many of the proposed neural solvers, the learning is not explicit (e.g. connectionist network (Bader et al. (2008)). Further, these methods do not usually support features such as inventing new predicates and learning recursive rules for predicates. Additionally, in almost all of the past ILP solvers, the space of possible symbolic rules for each predicate is significantly restricted and reduced by introducing some types of rule templates before searching through this space for possible candidate. (e.g., mode declarations in Progol (Muggleton (1995)) and metarules in Metagol). In fact, as stated in Evans and Grefenstette (2018)
, the need for using program templates to generate a limited set of viable candidate clauses in forming the predicates is the key weakness in all existing (past) ILP systems (neural or nonneural), severely limiting the solution space of a problem. The contribution of this paper is as follows: we introduce a new neural framework for learning ILP, by using a differentiable implementation of the forward chaining. Further, we practically remove the need for the use of rule templates by introducing novel symbolic Boolean function learners via multiplicative neurons. This flexibility in learning the firstorder formulas without the need for a rule template makes it possible to learn very complex recursive predicates. Finally, as will show in the experiments, the proposed method outperforms the state of the art ILP solvers in relational data classification for the problems involving thousands of constants.
2 Inductive Logic Programming via dNL
Logic programming is a programming paradigm in which we use formal logic (and usually firstorderlogic) to describe relations between facts and rules of a program domain. In this framework rules are usually written as clauses of the form:
(1) 
where is called head of the clause and is called body of the clause. A clause of this form expresses that if all the atoms in the body are true, the head is necessarily true. We assume each of the terms and are made of atoms. Each atom is created by applying an ary Boolean function called predicate to some constants or variables. A predicate states the relation between some variables or constants in the logic program. Throughout this paper we will use small letters for constants and capital letters (A, B, C, …) for variables. In ILP, a problem can be defined as a tuple (,,) where is the set of background assumptions and and are the set of positive and negative examples, respectively. Given this setting, the goal of the ILP is to construct a logic program (usually expressed as a set of definite clauses, ) such that it explains all the examples. More precisely,
(2) 
Let’s consider the logic program that defines the lessThan predicate over natural numbers and assume that our constants contains the set and the ordering of the natural numbers are defined using the predicate inc (which defines increments of 1). The set of background atoms which describes the known facts about this problem is the set . Further, and . It is easy to verify that the program with rules defined in the following entails all the positive examples and rejects all the negative ones:
(3) 
In most ILP systems, the set of possible atoms that can be used in the body of each rule are generated by using a template (e.g. mode declarations in Progol and metarules in Metagol (Cropper and Muggleton (2016))). If we allow for variables in the body of the rule for the predicate (e.g., , in above example), the set of possible (symbolic) atoms for the rule for the predicate is given by:
(4)  
(5) 
where is the set of variables ( for the rule and is the set of all the predicates in the program. Further the function generates the set of all the permutations of tuples of length from the elements of a set and the function returns the number of arguments in predicate . For example, in the lessThan program, and . Consequently, the set of possible atoms can be enumerated as:
In general, there are two main approaches to ILP. The bottomup family of approaches (e.g. Progol) start by examining the provided examples and extract specific clauses from those and try to generalize from those specific clauses. In the topdown approaches (e.g., most neural implementations as well as Metagol and dILP (Evans and Grefenstette (2018))), the possible clauses are generated via a template and the generated clauses are tested against positive and negative examples. Since the space of possible clauses are vast, in most of these systems, very restrictive template rules are employed to reduce the size of the search space. For example, dILP allows for clauses of at most two atoms and only two rules per each predicate. In the above example, since , this corresponds to considering only items from all the possible clauses (i.e., the power set of ). Metagol employs a more flexible approach by allowing the programmer to define the rule templates via some metarules. However, in practice, this approach does not resolve the issue completely. Even though it allows for more flexibility, defining those templates is itself a complicated task which requires expert knowledge and possible trials and it can still lead to exponentially large space of possible solutions. Later we will consider examples where these kinds of approaches are practically impossible.
Alternatively, we propose a novel approach which allows for learning any arbitrary Boolean function involving several atoms from the set . This is made possible via a set of differentiable neural functions which can explicitly learn and represent Boolean functions.
2.1 Differentiable Neural Logic Networks
Any Boolean functions can be learned (at least in theory) via a typical MLP network. However, since the corresponding logic is stored implicitly in weights of the MLP network, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to decipher the actual learned function. Therefore, MLP is not a good candidate to use in our ILP solver. Our intermediate goal is to design new neuronal functions which are capable of learning and representing Boolean functions in an explicit manner. Since any Boolean functions can be expressed in a Disjunctive Normal Form (DNF) or alternatively in a Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF), we first introduce novel conjunctive and disjunctive neurons. We can then combine these elementary functions to form more expressive constructs such as DNF and CNF functions. We use the extension of the Boolean to real values in the range
and we use 1 (True) and 0 (False) representations for the two states of a binary variable. We also define the fuzzy unary and dual Boolean functions of two Boolean variables
and as:(6) 
This algebraic representation of the Boolean logic allows us to manipulate the logical expressions via Algebra. Let
be the input vector for our logical neuron.


In order to implement the conjunction function, we need to select a subset in and apply the fuzzy conjunction (i.e. multiplication) to the selected elements. To this end, we associate a trainable Boolean membership weight to each input elements from vector . Further, we define a Boolean function with the truth table as in Fig.(a)a which is able to include (exclude) each element in (out of) the conjunction function. This design ensures the incorporation of each element in the conjunction function only when the corresponding membership weight is . Consequently, the neural conjunction function can be defined as:
(7) 
To ensure the membership weights remain in the range
we apply a sigmoid function to corresponding trainable weights
in the neural network, i.e., whereis a constant. Similar to perceptron layers, we can stack
conjunction neurons to create a conjunction layer of size . This layer has the same complexity as a typical perceptron layer without incorporating any bias term. More importantly, this implementation of the conjunction function makes it possible to interpret the learned Boolean function directly from the values of the membership weights . The disjunctive neuron can be defined similarly but using the function with truth table as depicted in Fig.(b)b, i.e.:(8) 
We call a complex networks made by combining the elementary conjunctive and disjunctive neurons, a dNL (differentiable Neural Logic) network. For example, by cascading a conjunction layer with one disjunctive neuron we can form a dNLDNF construct. Similarly, a dNLCNF can be constructed.
2.2 ILP as a Satisfiability Problem
We associate a dNL (conjunction) function to rule of every intensional predicate in our logic program. intensional predicates can use other predicates and variables in contrast to the extensional predicates which are entirely defined by the ground atoms. We view the membership weights in the conjunction neuron as a Boolean flags that indicates whether each atom in a rule is off or on. In this view, the problem of ILP can be seen as finding an assignment to these membership Boolean flags such that the resulting rules applied to the background facts, entail all positive examples and reject all negative examples. However, by allowing these membership weights to be learnable weights, we are formulating a continuous relaxation of the satisfiability problem. This approach is in some ways similar to the approach in dILP Evans and Grefenstette (2018), but differs in how we define Boolean flags. In dILP, a Boolean flag is assigned to each of the possible combinations of two atoms from the set . They then use a softmax network to learn the set of winning clauses and they interpret those weights in the softmax network as the Boolean flags that select one clause out of possible clauses. However, as mentioned earlier, in our approach the membership weights of the conjunction (or any other logical function from dNL) can be directly interpreted as the flags in the satisfiability interpretation.
2.3 Forward Chaining
We are now able to formulate the ILP problem as an endtoend differentiable neural network. We associate a (fuzzy) value vector for each predicate at timestamp as which holds the (fuzzy) Boolean values of all the ground atoms involving that predicate. For the example in consideration (i.e., lessThan), the vector includes the Boolean values for atoms in . For extensional predicates, these values will be constant during the forward chain of reasoning, but for intensional predicates such as lt, the values of the would change during the application of the predicate rules at each timestamp. Let be the set of all ground atoms and be the subset of associated with predicate . For every ground atom and for every rule , let be the set of all the substitutions of the constants into the variables which would result in the atom . In the lessThan program (see page 2) for example, for the ground atom , the set of all substitutions corresponding to the second rule (i.e., ) is given by . We can now define the one step forward inference formula as:
(9a)  
(9b) 
For the most practical purposes we can assume that the amalgamate function is simply the fuzzy disjunction function, but we will consider other options in the Appendix B. Here, for brevity we did not introduce the indexing notations in (9). By , we actually mean where returns the index of the corresponding element of vector . Further, each is the corresponding predicate rule function implemented as a differentiable dNL network (e.g., a conjunctive neuron). In each substitution, this function is applied to the input vector which is evaluated for the substitution . As an example, for the ground atom in the previous example, and for the substitution corresponding to the first rule we have:
Fig.4 shows one step forward chaining for learning the predicate . In this diagram two rules are combined and replaced by one dNLDNF functions.
2.4 Training
We obtain the initial values of the valuation vectors from the background atoms. i.e.,
(10) 
We interpret the final values of (after
steps of forward chaining) as the conditional probability for the value of atom given the model parameters and we define the loss as the average crossentropy loss between the ground truth provided by the positive and negative examples for the corresponding predicate
) and which is the algorithm output after forward chaining steps. We train the model using ADAM (Kingma and Ba (2014)) optimizer to minimize the aggregate loss over all intensional predicates with the learning rate of 0.001 (in some cases we may increase the rate for faster convergence). After the training is completed, a zero crossentropy loss indicates that the model has been able to satisfy all the examples in the positive and negative sets. However, there might exist a few atoms with membership weights of ’1’ in the corresponding dNL network for a predicate which are not necessary for the satisfiability of the solution. However, since there is no gradient at this point, those terms cannot be directly removed during the gradient descent algorithm unless we include some penalty terms. In practice, we use a simpler approach. In the final stage of algorithm we remove each atom if by switching its membership variable from ’1’ to ’0’, the loss function does not change.
2.5 Predicate rules ()
In the majority of the ILP systems, the body of the rules are defined as the conjunction of some atoms. However,in general the predicate rules can be defined as any arbitrary Boolean function of the elements of set . One of the main reasons for restricting the form of these rules in most ILP implementations is the vast space of possible Boolean functions that is needed to be considered. For example, by restricting the form of rule’s body to a pure Horn clause we reduce the space of possible functions from to only , where . Most ILP systems apply much further restrictions. For example, dILP limits the possible combinations to the possible combinations of terms made of two atoms. In contrast, in our proposed framework via dNL networks, we are able to learn arbitrary functions with any number of atoms in the formula. Though some functions from the possible functions require exponentially large number of terms if expressed in DNF form for example, in most of the typical scenarios, a dNLDNF function with reasonable number of disjunction terms is capable of learning the required logic. Further, even though our approach allows for multiple rules per predicates, in most scenarios we can learn all the rules for a predicate as one DNF formula instead of learning separate rules. Finally, we can easily allow for including the negation of each atom in the formula by concatenating the vector and its fuzzy negation, i.e., as the input to the function. This would only double the number of parameters of the model. In contrast, in most other implementations of ILP, this would increase the number of parameters and the problem complexity at much higher rates.
2.6 Implementation and Performance
We have implemented^{1}^{1}1The python implementation of dNLILP is available at https://github.com/apayani/ILP
the dNLILP solver model using Tensorflow (
Abadi et al. (2016)). In the previous sections, we have outlined the process in a sequential manner. However, in the actual implementations we first create index matrices using all the background facts before starting the optimization task. Further, all the substitution operations for each predicate (at each timestamp) are carried using a single gather function. Finally, at each timestamp and for each intensional predicate, all instances of applying (executing) the neural function are carried in a batch operation and in parallel. The proposed algorithm allows for a very efficient learning of arbitrary complex formulas and significantly reduces the complexity that arises in the typical ILP systems when increasing the number of possible atoms in each rule. Indeed, in our approach, usually there is no need for any tuning and parameter specification other than the size of the DNF network (total number of rules for a predicate) and specifying the number of existentially quantified variables for each rule. On the other hand, since we use a propositionalization step (typical to almost all neural ILP solvers), special care is required when the number of constants in the program is very large. While for the extensional and target predicates we can usually define the vectors corresponding only to the provided atoms in the sets , and , for the auxiliary predicates we may need to consider many intermediate ground atoms not included in the program. In such cases, when the space of possible atoms is very large, we may need to restrict the set of possible ground atoms.3 Past Works
Addressing all the important past contributions in ILP is a tall order and given the limited space we will only focus on a few recent approaches that are in some ways relevant to our work. Among the ILP solvers that are capable of learning recursive predicates (in an explicit and symbolic manner), the most notable examples are Metagol (Cropper and Muggleton (2016)) and dILP (Evans and Grefenstette (2018)). Metagol is a powerful method that is capable of learning very complex tasks via using the userprovided metarules. The main issue with Metagol is that while it allows for some flexibility in terms of providing the metarules, it is not always clear how to define those meta formulas. In practice, unless the expert already has some knowledge regarding the form of the possible solution, it would be very difficult to use this method. dILP, on the other hand, is a neural ILP solvers that, like our method, uses propositionalization of the data and formulates a differentiable neural ILP solver. Our proposed algorithm is in many regards similar to dILP. However, because of the way it define templates, dILP is limited to learning simple predicates with arity of at most two and with maximum two atoms in each rule. CILP++ (França et al. (2014)) is another noticeable neural ILP solver which also uses propositionalization similar to our method and dILP. CLIP++ is a very efficient algorithm and is capable of learning large scale relational datasets. However, since this algorithm uses the bottom clause propositionalization, it is not able to learn recursive predicates. In dealing with uncertain data and specially in the tasks involving classification of the relational datasets, the most notable framework is the probabilistic ILP (PILP) (De Raedt and Kersting (2008)) and its variants and also Markov Logic Networks (MLN) Richardson and Domingos (2006). These types of algorithms extend the framework of ILP to handle uncertain data by introducing a probabilistic framework. Our proposed approach is related to PILP in that we also associate a real number to each atom and each rule in the formula. We will compare the performance of our method to this category of statistical relational learners later in our experiment. The methods in this category in general are not capable of learning recursive predicates.
4 Experiments
The ability to learn recursive predicates is fundamental in learning a variety of algorithmic tasks (TamaddoniNezhad et al. (2015); Cropper and Muggleton (2015)). In practice, Metagol is the only notable ILP solver which can efficiently learn recursive predicates (via metarule templates). Our evaluations^{2}^{2}2Many of the symbolic tasks used in Evans and Grefenstette (2018) as well as some others are provided in the accompanying source code. show that the proposed dNLILP solver can learn a variety of discrete algorithmic tasks involving recursion very efficiently and without the need for predefined metarules. Here, we briefly explore two synthetic learning tasks before considering largescale tasks involving relational datasets.
4.1 Learning decimal multiplication
We use dNLILP solver for learning the predicates for decimal multiplication using only the positive and negative examples. We use as constants and our background knowledge is consisted of the extensional predicates , where defines increment of one and defines the addition. The target predicate is and we allow for using 5 variables (i.e., ) in each rule. We use a dNLDNF network with 4 disjunction terms (4 conjunctive rules) for learning . It is worth noting that since we do not know in advance how many rules would be needed, we should pick an arbitrary number and increase in case the ILP program cannot explain all the examples. Further, we set the . One of the solutions that our model finds is:
4.2 Sorting
The sorting task is more complex than the previous task since it requires not only the list semantics, but also many more constants compared to the arithmetic problem. We implement the list semantic by allowing the use of functions in defining predicates. For a data of type list, we define two functions and which allow for decomposing a list into head and tail elements, i.e . We use elements of and all the ordered lists made from permutations of up to three elements as constants in the program (i.e., . We use extensional predicates such as (greater than), (equals) and (less than or equal) to define ordering between the elements of lists as part of the background knowledge. We allow for using 4 variables (and their functions) in defining the predicate (i.e., ). One of the solution that our model finds is:
Even though the above examples involve learning tasks that may not seem very difficult on the surface, and deal with relatively small number of constants, they are far from trivial. To the best of our knowledge, learning a recursive predicate for a complex algorithmic task such as sort which involves multiple recursive rules with 6 atoms and includes variables (by counting two functions head and tail per variables) is beyond the power of any existing ILP solver. Here for example, the total number of possible atoms to choose from is and for the case of choosing 6 elements from this list we need to consider possible combinations (assuming we knew in advance there is a need for 6 atoms). While we can somewhat reduce this large space by removing some of the improbable clauses, no practical ILP solver is capable of learning these kinds of relations directly from examples.
4.3 Classification for Relational Data
We evaluate the performance of our proposed ILP solver in some benchmark ILP tasks. We use relational datasets Mutagenesis (Debnath et al. (1991)), UWCSE (Richardson and Domingos (2006)) as well as IMDB and Cora datasets^{3}^{3}3Publiclyavailable at https://relational.fit.cvut.cz/. Table 1 summarizes the features of these datasets.
Dataset  Constants  Predicates  Examples  Target Predicate 

Mutagenesis  7045  20  188  
UWCSE  7045  15  16714  
Cora  3079  10  70367  
IMDB  316  10  14505 
As baseline we are comparing our method with the state of the art algorithms based on Markov Logic Networks such GSLP (Dinh et al. (2011)), LSM (Kok and Domingos (2009)), MLNB (Boosted MLN), BRLR (Ramanan et al. (2018)) as well as probabilistic ILP based algorithms such as SleepCover (Bellodi and Riguzzi (2015)). Further, since in most of these datasets, the number of negative examples are significantly greater than the positive examples, we report the Area Under Precision Recall (AUPR) curve as a more reliable measure of the classification performance. We use 5fold cross validations except for the Mutagenesis dataset which we have used 10fold and we report the average AUPR over all the folds. Table 2 summarizes the classification performance for the 4 relational datasets.
Dataset  GSLP  LSM  SleepCover  MLNB  BRLR  dNLILP 

Mutagenesis  071  0.76  0.95  N/A  N/A  0.97 
UWCSE  0.42  0.46  0.07  0.91  0.89  0.51 
Cora  0.80  0.89  N/A  N/A  N/A  0.95 
IMDB  0.71  0.79  N/A  0.83  0.90  1.00 
As the results show, our proposed method outperforms the previous algorithms in the three tasks; Mutagenesis, Cora and IMDB. In case of IMDB dataset, it reaches the perfect classification (AUROC=1.0, AUPR=1.0). This impressive performance is only made possible because of the ability of learning recursive predicates. Indeed, when we disallow the recursion in this model, the AUPR performance drops to . The endtoend design of our differentiable ILP solver makes it possible to combine some other forms of learnable functions with the dNL networks. For example, while handling continuous data is usually difficult in most ILP solvers, we can directly learn some threshold values to create binary predicates from the continuous data (see Appendix D)^{4}^{4}4Alternatively, we can assign learnable probabilistic functions to those variables (see Appendix C).. We have used this method in the Mutagenesis task to handle the continuous data in this dataset. For the case of UWCSE, however, our method did not perform as well. One of the reasons is arguably the fact that the number of negative examples is significantly larger than the positive ones for this dataset. Indeed, in some of the published reports, (e.g. França et al. (2014)), the number of negative examples are limited using the closed world assumption as Davis et al. (2005). Because of the difference in hardware, it is difficult to directly compare the speed of algorithms. In our case, we have evaluated the models using a 3.70GHz CPU, 16GB RAM and GeForce GTX 1080TI graphic card. Using this setup the problems such as IMDB, Mutagenesis are learned in just a few seconds. For Cora, the model creation takes about one minute and the whole simulation for any fold takes less than 3 minutes.
5 Conclusion
We have introduced dNLILP as a new framework for learning inductive logic programming problems. Using various experiments we showed that dNLILP outperforms past algorithms for learning algorithmic and recursive predicates. Further, we demonstrated that dNLILP is capable of learning from uncertain and relational data and outperforms the state of the art ILP solvers in classification tasks for Mutagenesis, Cora and IMDB datasets.
Appendix A Notations
Notation  Explanation 

a predicate of arity  
the set of constants in the program  
the set of background atoms  
the set of positive examples  
the set of negative examples  
the set of ground atoms for predicate  
the set of all ground atoms  
the set of all predicates in the program  
the fuzzy values of all the ground atoms for predicate at time  
substitution of constant into variable  
the set of all the rules in the program  
the set of all the permutations of tuples of length from the set  
the set of atoms involving predicate and using the variables in the set  
the set of all atoms that can be used in generating rule for predicate 
Appendix B Amalgamate Function ()
In most scenarios we may set this function to a disjunction functions. However, we can modify this function for some specific purposes. For example:

: by this choice we can implement a notion of (for all) in logic which can be useful in certain programs. There is an example in the source code which learns array indexing by the help of this option.

: by this choice we can learn transient logic (an alternative approach to the algorithm presented in Inoue et al. (2014)).
Appendix C Dream4 challenge Experiment (handling uncertain data)
Inferring the causal relationship among different genes is one of the important problems in biology. In this experiment, we study the application of dNLILP for inferring the structure of gene regulatory networks using 10genes timeseries dataset from the DREAM4 challenge tasks Marbach et al. (2009). In the 10gene challenge, the data consists of 5 different biological systems, each composed of 10 genes. For each system a timeseries containing 105 noisy readings of the genes expressions (in range ) is provided. The timeseries is obtained via 5 different experiments, each created using a simulated perturbation in a subset of genes and recording the gene expressions over time. To tackle this problem using dNLILP framework, we simply assume that each gene can be in one of the two states: on (excited or perturbed) or off. The key idea here is to model each gene’s state (off or On) using two different approaches and then aim to get a consensus on the gene’s state using these two different probes. To accomplish this, for each gene we define the predicate which evaluates the state of using the corresponding continuous values. We also use predicate which takes the state of all the predicates ’s () to infer the state of . To ensure that at each background data would be close to , we define another auxiliary predicate with predicate function defined as .
Since the state of genes are uncertain, we use a probabilistic approach and assume that each gene state is conditionally distributed according to a Gaussian mixture (with 4 components), i.e., and . As such, we design such that it returns the probability of the gene being off, and let all the parameters of the mixture models be trainable weights. For the we use a dNLCNF network with only one term. Each data point in the time series corresponds to one background knowledge and consists of the continuous value of each gene expression. For each gene, we assign 5 percent of data points with the lowest and highest absolute distance from mean as positive and negative examples for predicate , respectively. We interpret the values of the membership weights in the trained dNLCNF networks which are used in as the degree of connection between two genes. Table 4 compares the performance of dNLILP to the two state of the art algorithms NARROMI Zhang et al. (2012) and MICRAT Yang et al. (2018) for 10gene classification tasks of DREAM4 dataset.
MetricMethod  NARROMI  MICRAT  dNLILP 

Accuracy  0.82  0.87  0.86 
FScore  0.35  0.32  0.36 
MCC  0.24  0.33  0.35 
Appendix D UCI Dataset Classification (handling continuous data)
Reasoning using continuous data has been an ongoing challenge for ILP. Most of the current approaches either model continuous data as random variables and use probabilistic ILP framework
De Raedt and Kersting (2008), or use some forms of discretization using iterative approaches. The former approach cannot be applied to the cases where we do not have reasonable assumptions for the probability distributions. Further, the latter approach is usually limited to small scale problems (e.g.
Ribeiro et al. (2017)) since the search space grows exponentially as the number of continuous variables and the boundary decisions increases. Alternatively, the endtoend design of dNLILP makes it rather easy to handle continuous data. Recall that even though we usually use dNL based functions, the predicate functions can be defined as any arbitrary Boolean function in our model. Thus, for each continuous variable we define lowerboundary predicates as well as upperboundary predicates where . We let the boundary values ’s and ’s be trainable weights and we define the upperboundary and lowerboundary predicate functions as:where is the sigmoid function and is a constant. To evaluate this approach we use it in a classification task for two datasets containing continuous data; Wine and Sonar from UCI Machine learning dataset Dua and Karra Taniskidou (2017) and compare its performance to the ALEPH Srinivasan (2001), a stateoftheart ILP system, as well as the recently proposed FOLD+LIME algorithm Shakerin and Gupta (2018). The wine classification task involves 13 continuous features and three classes and the Sonar task is a binary classification task involving 60 features. For each class we define a corresponding intensional predicate via dNLDNF and learn that predicate from a set of and predicates corresponding to each continuous feature. We set the number of boundaries to 6 (i.e., ). The classification accuracy results for the 5fold cross validation setting is depicted in Table 5.
Task  ALEPH+LIME  FOLD+LIME  dNLILP 

Wine  0.92  0.93  0.98 
Sonar  0.74  0.78  0.85 
References
 Abadi et al. [2016] Martín Abadi, Paul Barham, Jianmin Chen, Zhifeng Chen, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghemawat, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, et al. Tensorflow: A system for largescale machine learning. In 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 16), pages 265–283, 2016.
 Bader et al. [2008] Sebastian Bader, Pascal Hitzler, and Steffen Hölldobler. Connectionist model generation: A firstorder approach. Neurocomputing, 71(1315):2420–2432, 2008.
 Bellodi and Riguzzi [2015] Elena Bellodi and Fabrizio Riguzzi. Structure learning of probabilistic logic programs by searching the clause space. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 15(2):169–212, 2015.

Cropper and
Muggleton [2015]
Andrew Cropper and Stephen H Muggleton.
Learning efficient logical robot strategies involving composable
objects.
In
TwentyFourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
, 2015.  Cropper and Muggleton [2016] Andrew Cropper and Stephen H. Muggleton. Metagol system. https://github.com/metagol/metagol, 2016.

Davis et al. [2005]
Jesse Davis, Elizabeth Burnside, Inês de Castro Dutra, David Page, and
Vítor Santos Costa.
An integrated approach to learning bayesian networks of rules.
In European Conference on Machine Learning, pages 84–95. Springer, 2005.  De Raedt and Kersting [2008] Luc De Raedt and Kristian Kersting. Probabilistic inductive logic programming. In Probabilistic Inductive Logic Programming, pages 1–27. Springer, 2008.
 Debnath et al. [1991] A. K. Debnath, R. L. Lopez de Compadre, G. Debnath, A. J. Shusterman, and C. Hansch. Structureactivity relationship of mutagenic aromatic and heteroaromatic nitro compounds. Correlation with molecular orbital energies and hydrophobicity. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 34(2):786–797, 1991.
 Dinh et al. [2011] QuangThang Dinh, Matthieu Exbrayat, and Christel Vrain. Generative structure learning for markov logic networks based on graph of predicates. In TwentySecond International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2011.
 Dua and Karra Taniskidou [2017] Dheeru Dua and Efi Karra Taniskidou. UCI machine learning repository, 2017.
 Evans and Grefenstette [2018] Richard Evans and Edward Grefenstette. Learning explanatory rules from noisy data. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 61:1–64, 2018.
 França et al. [2014] Manoel VM França, Gerson Zaverucha, and Artur S d’Avila Garcez. Fast relational learning using bottom clause propositionalization with artificial neural networks. Machine learning, 94(1):81–104, 2014.
 Hölldobler et al. [1999] Steffen Hölldobler, Yvonne Kalinke, and HansPeter Störr. Approximating the semantics of logic programs by recurrent neural networks. Applied Intelligence, 11(1):45–58, 1999.
 Inoue et al. [2014] Katsumi Inoue, Tony Ribeiro, and Chiaki Sakama. Learning from interpretation transition. Machine Learning, 94(1):51–79, 2014.
 Kingma and Ba [2014] Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. CoRR, abs/1412.6980, 2014.
 Kok and Domingos [2009] Stanley Kok and Pedro Domingos. Learning markov logic network structure via hypergraph lifting. In Proceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning, pages 505–512. ACM, 2009.
 Marbach et al. [2009] Daniel Marbach, Thomas Schaffter, Dario Floreano, Robert J Prill, and Gustavo Stolovitzky. The dream4 insilico network challenge. Draft, version 0.3, 2009.
 Muggleton [1995] Stephen Muggleton. Inverse entailment and progol. New generation computing, 13(34):245–286, 1995.

Ramanan et al. [2018]
Nandini Ramanan, Gautam Kunapuli, Tushar Khot, Bahare Fatemi, Seyed Mehran
Kazemi, David Poole, Kristian Kersting, and Sriraam Natarajan.
Structure learning for relational logistic regression: An ensemble approach.
In Sixteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 2018.  Ribeiro et al. [2017] Tony Ribeiro, Sophie Tourret, Maxime Folschette, Morgan Magnin, Domenico Borzacchiello, Francisco Chinesta, Olivier Roux, and Katsumi Inoue. Inductive learning from state transitions over continuous domains. In International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming, pages 124–139. Springer, 2017.
 Richardson and Domingos [2006] Matthew Richardson and Pedro Domingos. Markov logic networks. Machine learning, 62(12):107–136, 2006.
 Serafini and Garcez [2016] Luciano Serafini and Artur d’Avila Garcez. Logic tensor networks: Deep learning and logical reasoning from data and knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.04422, 2016.
 Shakerin and Gupta [2018] Farhad Shakerin and Gopal Gupta. Induction of nonmonotonic logic programs to explain boosted tree models using lime. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.00629, 2018.
 Srinivasan [2001] Ashwin Srinivasan. The aleph manual, 2001.
 TamaddoniNezhad et al. [2015] Alireza TamaddoniNezhad, David Bohan, Alan Raybould, and Stephen Muggleton. Towards machine learning of predictive models from ecological data. In Inductive Logic Programming, pages 154–167. Springer, 2015.
 Yang et al. [2018] Bei Yang, Yaohui Xu, Andrew Maxwell, Wonryull Koh, Ping Gong, and Chaoyang Zhang. Micrat: a novel algorithm for inferring gene regulatory networks using time series gene expression data. BMC systems biology, 12(7):115, 2018.
 Zhang et al. [2012] Xiujun Zhang, Keqin Liu, ZhiPing Liu, Béatrice Duval, JeanMichel Richer, XingMing Zhao, JinKao Hao, and Luonan Chen. Narromi: a noise and redundancy reduction technique improves accuracy of gene regulatory network inference. Bioinformatics, 29(1):106–113, 2012.
Comments
There are no comments yet.