Skip to main content
Log in

Learning Inference Rules from Data

  • Technical Contribution
  • Published:
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper considers the possibility of designing AI that can learn logical or non-logical inference rules from data. We first provide an abstract framework for learning logics. In this framework, an agent \({{{\mathcal {A}}}}\) provides training examples that consist of formulas S and their logical consequences T. Then a machine \({{{\mathcal {M}}}}\) builds an axiomatic system that makes T a consequence of S. Alternatively, in the absence of an agent \(\mathcal{A}\), a machine \({{{\mathcal {M}}}}\) seeks an unknown logic underlying given data. We next consider the problem of learning logical inference rules by induction. Given a set S of propositional formulas and their logical consequences T, the goal is to find deductive inference rules that produce T from S. We show that an induction algorithm LF1T, which learns logic programs from interpretation transitions, successfully produces deductive inference rules from input data. Finally, we consider the problem of learning non-logical inference rules. We address three case studies for learning abductive inference, frame axioms, and conversational implicature. Each case study uses machine learning techniques together with metalogic programming.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The technique is used for a logic with the law of excluded middle.

  2. The result is shown for normal logic programs and is applied to their subclass of programs.

  3. For simplicity reasons, we omit atoms such as \(hold(r\wedge s)\) in \({{{\mathcal {H}}}}\) that produces non-minimal explanations.

  4. \(\preceq\) coincides with \(\le\) in Sect. 3.1 when rules contain no variable.

  5. An atom A occurring in body(R) is redundant if \(body(R)\setminus \{A\}\equiv body(R)\) where \(\equiv\) is equivalence under subsumption \(\preceq\).

  6. If there is a deduction system that can check whether one rule is derived from other rules, this is done automatically.

  7. Here we assume the existence of a state constraint: \(\forall x\forall y\, [hold(on(x,t))\wedge hold(on(x,y))\supset y=t\,]\) asserting that if an object x is on a table t and x is on y then y is t.

References

  1. Bengio Y, Courville A, Vincent P (2013) Representation learning: a review and new perspectives. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 35:1798–1828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bowen KA, Kowalski RA (1983) Amalgamating language and metalanguage in logic programming. In: Clark K, Tarnlund SA (eds) Logic programming. Academic Press, New York, pp 153–172

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bundy A, Sterling L (1988) Meta-level inference: two applications. J Autom Reason 4(1):15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Coradeschi S, Loutfi A, Wrede B (2013) A short review of symbol grounding in robotic and intelligent systems. KI Kúnstliche Intelligenz 27:129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan J (eds) Syntax and semantics, 3: speech acts. Academic Press, New York, pp 41–58

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hamfelt A, Nilsson JF (1994) Inductive metalogic programming. In: Wrobel S (ed) Proceedings of fourth international workshop on Inductive logic programming (ILP-94). GMD-Studien Nr. 237, Bad Honnef, pp 85–96

    Google Scholar 

  7. Inoue K, Furukawa K, Kobayashi I, Nabeshima H (2010) Discovering rules by meta-level abduction. In: Inductive logic programming, 19th international conference, ILP 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol 5989. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 49–64

  8. Inoue K, Ribeiro T, Sakama C (2014) Learning from interpretation transition. Mach Learn 94:51–79

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Inoue K (2015) Meta-level abduction. IFCoLog J Log Appl 3:7–36

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lenat DB (1979) On automated scientific theory formation: a case study using the AM program. In: Hayes JE, Michie D, Mikulich OI (eds) Machine intelligence 9. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, pp 251–283

    Google Scholar 

  11. Levinson SC (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Martínez D, Alenyà G, Ribeiro T, Inoue K, Torras C (2017) Relational reinforcement learning for planning with exogenous effects. J Mach Learn Res 18:78:1–78:44

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. McCarthy J, Hayes PJ (1969) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Meltzer B, Michie D (eds) Machine intelligence 4. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 463–502

    Google Scholar 

  14. Michalski RS (1983) A theory and methodology of inductive learning. In: Michalski RS et al (eds) Machine learning: an artificial intelligence approach. Morgan Kaufmann, Palo Alto, pp 83–134

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Minker J (ed) (2000) Logic-based artificial intelligence. Kluwer Academic, Norwell

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Muggleton SH, Lin D, Pahlavi N, Tamaddoni-Nezhad A (2014) Meta-interpretive learning: application to grammatical inference. Mach Learn 94:25–49

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Nienhuys-Cheng S-H, de Wolf R (1997) Foundations of inductive logic programming. LNCS (LNAI), vol 1228. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Peirce CS (1958) Collected papers of charles sanders peirce, volumes I and II: principles of philosophy and elements of logic. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

  19. Piaget J (1973) Main trends in psychology. Allen & Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Plotkin GD (1970) A note on inductive generalization. In: Meltzer B, Michie D (eds) Machine intelligence 5. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 153–63

    Google Scholar 

  21. Prawitz D (2006) Natural deduction: a proof-theoretical study. Dover Publications, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Ribeiro T, Inoue K (2015) Learning prime implicant conditions from interpretation transition. In: Inductive logic programming, 24th international conference, ILP 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol 9046. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 108–125

  23. Sakama C, Inoue K (2016) Abduction, conversational implicature and misleading in human dialogues. Log J IGPL 24:526–541

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Sakama C, Inoue K (2015) Can machines learn logics? In: Artificial general intelligence, 8th international conference, AGI 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol 9205., Springer, Heidelberg, pp 341–351

  25. Sakama C, Ribeiro T, Inoue K (2015) Learning inference by induction. In: Inductive logic programming, 25th international conference, ILP 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol 9575. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 183–199

  26. Schmidt M, Lipson H (2009) Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data. Science 324:81–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59:433–460

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. van Emden MH, Kowalski RA (1976) The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. J ACM 23:733–742

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Wong W, Liu W, Bennamoun M (2012) Ontology learning from text: a look back and into the future. ACM Comput Surv 44:20:1–20:36

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Woods J, Irvine A, Walton D (2000) Argument: critical thinking, logic and the fallacies. Prentice-Hall, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiaki Sakama.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sakama, C., Inoue, K. & Ribeiro, T. Learning Inference Rules from Data. Künstl Intell 33, 267–278 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-019-00597-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-019-00597-y

Keywords

Navigation