Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:00:24.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inference and learning in probabilistic logic programs using weighted Boolean formulas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2014

DAAN FIERENS ,
GUY VAN DEN BROECK ,
JORIS RENKENS ,
DIMITAR SHTERIONOV ,
BERND GUTMANN ,
INGO THON ,
GERDA JANSSENS  and
LUC DE RAEDT
DAAN FIERENS
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200A, 3001 Heverlee, [email protected]
GUY VAN DEN BROECK
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200A, 3001 Heverlee, [email protected]
JORIS RENKENS
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200A, 3001 Heverlee, [email protected]
DIMITAR SHTERIONOV
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200A, 3001 Heverlee, [email protected]
BERND GUTMANN
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200A, 3001 Heverlee, [email protected]
INGO THON
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200A, 3001 Heverlee, [email protected]
GERDA JANSSENS
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200A, 3001 Heverlee, [email protected]
LUC DE RAEDT
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200A, 3001 Heverlee, [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Probabilistic logic programs are logic programs in which some of the facts are annotated with probabilities. This paper investigates how classical inference and learning tasks known from the graphical model community can be tackled for probabilistic logic programs. Several such tasks, such as computing the marginals, given evidence and learning from (partial) interpretations, have not really been addressed for probabilistic logic programs before. The first contribution of this paper is a suite of efficient algorithms for various inference tasks. It is based on the conversion of the program and the queries and evidence to a weighted Boolean formula. This allows us to reduce inference tasks to well-studied tasks, such as weighted model counting, which can be solved using state-of-the-art methods known from the graphical model and knowledge compilation literature. The second contribution is an algorithm for parameter estimation in the learning from interpretations setting. The algorithm employs expectation-maximization, and is built on top of the developed inference algorithms. The proposed approach is experimentally evaluated. The results show that the inference algorithms improve upon the state of the art in probabilistic logic programming, and that it is indeed possible to learn the parameters of a probabilistic logic program from interpretations.

Keywords

probabilistic logic programmingprobabilistic inferenceparameter learning
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , May 2015 , pp. 358 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

References

Bryant, R. E. 1986. Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers 35, 8 (August), 677–691.Google Scholar
Chavira, M., Darwiche, A. and Jaeger, M. 2006. Compiling relational Bayesian networks for exact inference. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 42, 1, 4–20.Google Scholar
Darwiche, A. 2001. On the tractability of counting theory models and its application to belief revision and truth maintenance. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 11, 1–2, 11–34.Google Scholar
Darwiche, A. 2004. New advances in compiling CNF into decomposable negation normal form. In Proceedings of 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 328–332.Google Scholar
Darwiche, A. 2009. Modeling and Reasoning with Bayesian Networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Chap. 12.Google Scholar
Darwiche, A. and Marquis, P. 2002. A knowledge compilation map. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 17, 1 (September), 229–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denecker, M., Bruynooghe, M. and Marek, V. W. 2001. Logic programming revisited: Logic programs as inductive definitions. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2, 4, 623–654.Google Scholar
De Raedt, L. 2008. Logical and Relational Learning. Cognitive Technologies. Springer, New York, NY.Google Scholar
De Raedt, L., Frasconi, P., Kersting, K. and Muggleton, S., Eds. 2008. Probabilistic Inductive Logic Programming – Theory and Applications. LNCS, vol. 4911. Springer, New York, NY.Google Scholar
De Raedt, L., Kimmig, A. and Toivonen, H. 2007. Problog: A probabilistic prolog and its application in link discovery. In Proceedings of 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 2468–2473.Google Scholar
Domingos, P., Kok, S., Lowd, D., Poon, H., Richardson, M. and Singla, P. 2008. Probabilistic Inductive Logic Programming – Theory and Applications, Chapter “Markov Logic,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Fierens, D., Van den Broeck, G., Bruynooghe, M. and De Raedt, L. 2012. Constraints for probabilistic logic programming. In Proceedings of the NIPS 2012 Workshop on Probabilistic Programming: Foundations and Applications.Google Scholar
Fierens, D., Van den Broeck, G., Thon, I., Gutmann, B. and De Raedt, L. 2011. Inference in probabilistic logic programs using weighted CNFs. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), AUAI Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA, 211–220.Google Scholar
Getoor, L. and Taskar, B. 2007. Introduction to Statistical Relational Learning (Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Gomes, C. P., Hoffmann, J., Sabharwal, A. and Selman, B. 2007. From sampling to model counting. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2293–2299.Google Scholar
Grädel, E. 1992. On transitive closure logic. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Computer Science Logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 626. Springer, New York, NY, 149–163.Google Scholar
Gutmann, B., Kimmig, A., Kersting, K. and Raedt, L. 2008a. Parameter learning in probabilistic databases: A least squares approach. In Proceedings of the 2008 European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML PKDD '08) – Part I. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 473–488.Google Scholar
Gutmann, B., Kimmig, A., Kersting, K. and Raedt, L. D. 2008b. Parameter learning in probabilistic databases: A least squares approach. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Daelemans, W., Goethals, B. and Morik, K., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5211. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 473–488.Google Scholar
Gutmann, B., Thon, I. and De Raedt, L. 2010. Learning the Parameters of Probabilistic Logic Programs from Interpretations. Technical Report CW 584, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Gutmann, B., Thon, I. and De Raedt, L. 2011. Learning the parameters of probabilistic logic programs from interpretations. In Proceedings of the 2008 European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML/PKDD), Part 1. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 581–596.Google Scholar
Ishihata, M., Kameya, Y., Sato, T. and Minato, S. 2008. Propositionalizing the EM algorithm by BDDs. In Late Breaking Papers of the 18th International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming.Google Scholar
Janhunen, T. 2004. Representing normal programs with clauses. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 358–362.Google Scholar
Kersting, K., De Raedt, L. and Kramer, S. 2000. Interpreting Bayesian logic programs. In Proceedings of the AAAI-2000 workshop on learning statistical models from relational data, AAAI Press, 29–35.Google Scholar
Kimmig, A., Demoen, B., De Raedt, L., Costa, V. S. and Rocha, R. 2010. On the implementation of the probabilistic logic programming language problog. In Theory and Practice of Logic Programming Systems, 24th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2008), Special Issue, vol. 11, pp. 235–262, arXiv: CoRR abs/1006.4442.Google Scholar
Lin, F. and Zhao, Y. 2002. Assat: Computing answer sets of a logic program by sat solvers. In Artificial Intelligence. Benferhat, S. and Giunchiglia, E., Eds. Elsevier, 112–117.Google Scholar
Lloyd, J. 1987. Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mantadelis, T. and Janssens, G. 2010. Dedicated tabling for a probabilistic setting. In Technical Communications of 26th International Conference on Logic Programming, Hermenegildo, M. and Schaub, T., Eds. Dagstuhl Publishing, Saarbrücken/Wadern, Germany, 124–133.Google Scholar
Meert, W., Struyf, J. and Blockeel, H. 2009. CP-logic theory inference with contextual variable elimination and comparison to BDD based inference methods. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming, De Raedt, L., Ed. Elsevier, 96–109.Google Scholar
Muise, C., Mcilraith, S. A., Beck, J. C. and Hsu, E. 2012. DSHARP: Fast d-DNNF compilation with sharpSAT. In Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Kosseim, L. and Inkpen, D. Eds. Springer.Google Scholar
Park, J. D. 2002. Using weighted MAX-SAT engines to solve MPE. In Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, 682–687.Google Scholar
Poole, D. 2008. Probabilistic Inductive Logic Programming – Theory and Applications, Chapter: “The Independent Choice Logic and Beyond.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poon, H. and Domingos, P. 2006. Sound and efficient inference with probabilistic and deterministic dependencies. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Riguzzi, F. and Swift, T. 2013. Well–definedness and efficient inference for probabilistic logic programming under the distribution semantics. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 13, 2, 279–302.Google Scholar
Robertson, N. and Seymour, P. 1986. Graph minors. II. Algorithmic aspects of tree-width. Journal of Algorithms 7, 3, 309–322.Google Scholar
Sang, T., Beame, P. and Kautz, H. 2005. Solving Bayesian networks by weighted model counting. In Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, 475–482.Google Scholar
Sato, T. 1995. A statistical learning method for logic programs with distribution semantics. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP95). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 715–729.Google Scholar
Sato, T. and Kameya, Y. 2008. Probabilistic Inductive Logic Programming – Theory and Applications, Chapter: “New Advances in Logic-Based Probabilistic Modeling by PRISM.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Van den Broeck, G., Thon, I., van Otterlo, M. and De Raedt, L. 2010. DTProbLog: A decision-theoretic probabilistic Prolog. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI Press, 1217–1222.Google Scholar
Van Gelder, A., Ross, K. A. and Schlipf, J. S. 1991. The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of ACM 38, 3, 620–650.Google Scholar
Vennekens, J., Denecker, M. and Bruynooghe, M. 2009. Cp-logic: A language of causal probabilistic events and its relation to logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 9, 3, 245–308. CoRR abs/0904.1672.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Fierens Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Fierens Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 470.1 KB