Bayesian Abductive Logic Programs Sindhu Raghavan Raymond J. Mooney The University of Texas at...
-
Upload
kurtis-markley -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Bayesian Abductive Logic Programs Sindhu Raghavan Raymond J. Mooney The University of Texas at...
Bayesian Abductive Logic Programs
Sindhu Raghavan Raymond J. Mooney
The University of Texas at Austin
1
Abduction
• Process of finding the best explanation for a set of observations (Peirce 1958)
• Inference of cause from effect• Applications
– Plan recognition– Medical diagnosis– Natural language understanding
2
Logical AbductionGiven:• Background knowledge, B, in the form of a set of (Horn)
clauses in first-order logic • Observations, O, in the form of atomic facts in first-order
logic
Find:• A hypothesis, H, a set of assumptions (atomic facts) that
logically entail the observations given the theory: B H O• Typically, best explanation is the one with the fewest
assumptions, e.g. minimizes |H|
3
Example - Plan RecognitionBackground knowledge B:go(person,loc) :- shopping(person,loc,item).go(person,loc) :- robbing(person,loc,instr).get(person,instr) :- robbing(person,loc,instr).get(person,instr) :- hunting(person,loc,instr).store(loc) :- shopping(person,loc,item).store(loc) :- robbing(person,loc,instr).gun(instr) :- robbing(person,loc,instr).gun(instr) :- hunting(person,loc,instr).
4
Abductive Proof 1
get(john,o1) gun(o1) go(john,p1) store(p1)
hunting(john,s2,o1) shopping(john,p1,s1)
6
Best Explanation
8
Explanation 1
hunting(john,s2,o1) shopping(john,p1,s1)
Explanation 1
hunting(john,s2,o1) shopping(john,p1,s1)
Explanation 2
robbing(john,p1,o1)
Explanation 2
robbing(john,p1,o1)
Best explanation makes fewest assumptions
Existing Work on Logical Abduction
• History of research from 70’s – 90’s. (Pople 1973; Levesque 1989; Ng and Mooney 1992)
• Abductive Logic Programming (ALP) (Kakas, Kowalski, and Toni, 1993)
– Formalization based on logic programming.
9
Problem with Logical Abduction
• Not handle uncertainty of assumptions and inferences.
• Unable to chose between explanations with the same number of assumptions based on probability.
10
Other Approaches to Abduction
• Probabilistic abduction using Bayesian networks (Pearl 1988).
– Unable to capture relational structure since Bayes nets are propositional in nature
• Probabilistic relational abduction using Markov Logic Networks (MLNs) (Kate and Mooney 2009).
– Does not use logical abduction, instead uses complex reverse implications to approximate it.
11
Bayesian Logic Programs (BLP) (Kersting and De Raedt, 2001)
• Bayesian Logic Programs (BLPs) combine first-order logic and Bayesian networks.
• Deductive logic programming used to construct structure of a Bayes net.
• Not suitable for problems requiring abductive logical inference to form a proof structure by making assumptions.
12
Bayesian Abductive Logic Programs(BALP)
BLPBLP ALPALP
BALPBALP
Suitable for tasks involving abductive reasoning – plan recognition, diagnosis, etc.
13
BLPs vs. BALPs
• Like BLPs, BALPs use logic programs as templates for constructing Bayesian networks.
• Unlike BLPs, BALPs uses logical abduction instead of deduction to construct the network.
14
Abduction in BALPs
• Given : A set of observation literals O = {O1, O2,….On}
• Compute all distinct abductive proofs of O.• Construct a Bayesian network using the resulting set
of proofs as in BLPs.• Perform probabilistic inference on the Bayesian
network to compute the best explanation.
15
Abductive Proof 1
get(john,o1) gun(o1) go(john,p1) store(p1)
hunting(john,s2,o1) shopping(john,p1,s1)
16
Resulting Bayes Net
get(john,o1) gun(o1) go(john,p1) store(p1)
hunting(john,s2,o1) shopping(john,p1,s1)
robbing(john,p1,o1)
18
Probabilistic Parameters
• As with BLPs, CPTs for Bayes net specified in first-order clauses.
• Noisy-and combining rule is used to specify the CPT for combining the conjuncts in the body of the clause– Reduces the number of parameters needed– Parameters can be learned from data
• Noisy-or combining rule is used to specify the CPT for combining the disjunctive contributions from different ground clauses with the same head– Models “explaining away”– Parameters can be learned from data
19
Resulting Bayes Net get(john,o1) gun(o1) go(john,p1) store(p1)
hunting(john,s2,o1) shopping(john,p1,s1)
robbing(john,p1,o1)
20
noisy ornoisy or noisy or
noisy or
Probabilistic Inference
• Specify truth value of observed facts.• Compute the Most Probable Explanation
(MPE) to determine the most likely combination of truth values to all unknown literals given this evidence.
• Use standard Bayes-net package ELVIRA for inference.
21
Resulting Bayes Net
get(john,o1) gun(o1) go(john,p1) store(p1)
hunting(john,s2,o1) shopping(john,p1,s1)
robbing(john,p1,o1)
noisy ornoisy or noisy or
noisy or
22
Resulting Bayes Net
get(john,o1) gun(o1) go(john,p1) store(p1)
hunting(john,s2,o1) shopping(john,p1,s1)
robbing(john,p1,o1)
Observed facts
23
noisy ornoisy or noisy or
noisy or
Resulting Bayes Net
get(john,o1) gun(o1) go(john,p1) store(p1)
hunting(john,s2,o1) shopping(john,p1,s1)
robbing(john,p1,o1)
Observed facts
Query variables
24
noisy ornoisy or noisy or
noisy or
Resulting Bayes Net
get(john,o1) gun(o1) go(john,p1) store(p1)
hunting(john,s2,o1) shopping(john,p1,s1)
robbing(john,p1,o1)
Observed facts
Query variables
FALSE FALSE
TRUE
25
noisy ornoisy or noisy or
noisy or
Story Understanding Data• Recognizing plans from narrative text (Charniak and
Goldman 1991; Ng and Mooney 1992).
• Infer characters’ higher-level plans that explain their observed actions represented in logic.– “Fred went to the supermarket. He pointed a gun at the owner. He packed his bag.”
=> robbing– “Jack went to the supermarket. He found some milk on the shelf. He paid for it.” =>
shopping
• 25 development examples and 25 test examples• 12.6 observations per example.• Background knowledge base originally constructed for
ACCEL system (Ng and Mooney 1992).
27
Story Understanding Methodology
• Noisy-and and noisy-or parameters set to 0.9 and priors hand-tuned on development data.
• Multiple high-level plans per example are possible.
• MPE inference used to compute the best explanation.
• Computed precision, recall and F-measure.
28
Story Understanding Systems Evaluated
• BALPs• ACCEL – Simplicity (Ng and Mooney 1992)
– Logical abduction preferring fewest # of assumptions.
• ACCEL – Coherence (Ng and Mooney 1992)– Logical abduction that maximally connects observations– Specific to story understanding.
• Abductive MLNs (Kate and Mooney 2009)
29
Monroe Data• Recognizing high level plans in an emergency
response domain. Developed by Blaylock and Allen (2005) to test a statistical n-gram
approach.
• 10 high level plans including setting up shelter, providing medical attention, clearing road wreck.
• Artificially generated using SHOP-2 HTN planner.• 1000 examples for evaluation.• 10.19 observation literals per example.• Single correct plan in each example.• Knowledge base constructed based on the domain
knowledge encoded in HTN. 31
Monroe Methodology
• Parameters were set as in story understanding.
• Computed marginal probabilities for all high level plans and selected the single one with the highest probability.
• Computed convergence score to compare with Blaylock and Allen results.• Convergence score is the fraction of examples for which
the top level plan schema (predicate only) was predicted accurately after seeing all observations.
32
Modified Monroe Data• When applying the Kate & Mooney (2009) abductive
MLN approach to Monroe, it resulted in explosively large ground networks.
• Simplified Monroe domain just enough to prevent these problems.
• Developed typed clauses effective for abductive MLNs.
• Weight learning was still not tractable, so weights set manually.
34
Modified Monroe Methodology
• Repeatedly measured the percentage of correct plans inferred (including correct arguments) after observing an increasing fraction of the actions in the plan.
35
Ongoing & Future Work
• Automatic learning of BALP parameters from data.• Alternative MLN formulation more directly modeling
the BALP approach.– Preliminary results for story understanding and modified
Monroe are only slightly worse than BALP results, but much worse for original Monroe.
• Compare to other SRL approaches that have incorporated logical abduction (SLPs, PRISM) when applied to plan recognition.
• Evaluation on other datasets/tasks/domains.
37
Conclusions
• New SRL framework BALP that combines Bayesian Logic Programs and Abductive Logic Programming.
• Well suited for relational abductive reasoning tasks like plan recognition.
• Empirical results demonstrate advantages over existing methods.
38