Abstract
The AI community is increasingly putting its attention towards combining symbolic and neural approaches, as it is often argued that the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches are complementary. One recent trend in the literature is weakly supervised learning techniques that employ operators from fuzzy logics. In particular, these use prior background knowledge described in such logics to help the training of a neural network from unlabeled and noisy data. By interpreting logical symbols using neural networks, this background knowledge can be added to regular loss functions, hence making reasoning a part of learning.We study, both formally and empirically, how a large collection of logical operators from the fuzzy logic literature behave in a differentiable learning setting. We find that many of these operators, including some of the most well-known, are highly unsuitable in this setting. A further finding concerns the treatment of implication in these fuzzy logics, and shows a strong imbalance between gradients driven by the antecedent and the consequent of the implication. Furthermore, we introduce a new family of fuzzy implications (called sigmoidal implications) to tackle this phenomenon. Finally, we empirically show that it is possible to use Differentiable Fuzzy Logics for semi-supervised learning, and compare how different operators behave in practice. We find that, to achieve the largest performance improvement over a supervised baseline, we have to resort to non-standard combinations of logical operators which perform well in learning, but no longer satisfy the usual logical laws.
Highlights
In recent years, integrating symbolic and statistical approaches to Artificial Intelligence (AI) gained considerable attention (Garcez et al, 2012; Besold et al, 2017)
We study what we call as Differentiable Fuzzy Logics (DFL), a family of Differentiable Logics in the literature based on fuzzy logic
1Functions and constants are modelled in Serafini and Garcez (2016) and Marra et al (2018). 2Serafini and Garcez (2016) uses the term “(semantic) grounding” or “symbol grounding” (Mayo, 2003) instead of ‘embedded interpretation’, “to emphasize the fact that L is interpreted in a ‘real world’” but we find this potentially confusing as this could refer to groundings in Herbrand semantics
Summary
In recent years, integrating symbolic and statistical approaches to Artificial Intelligence (AI) gained considerable attention (Garcez et al, 2012; Besold et al, 2017). While deep learning has brought many important breakthroughs in computer vision (Brock et al, 2018), natural language processing (Radford et al, 2019) and reinforcement learning (Silver et al, 2017), the concern is that progress will be halted if its shortcomings are not dealt with. Among these is the massive amounts of data that deep learning models need to learn even a simple concept. If t1, ..., tm are all constants, we say it is a ground atom
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.