Cited by 131Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Neural probabilistic logic programming in DeepProbLog

Open access
Manhaeve, Robin, Dumančić, Sebastijan, Kimmig, Angelika, Demeester, Thomas, De Raedt, Luc·2021·Artificial Intelligence

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103504

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior neuro-symbolic methods suffer from limitations such as hand-crafted or specialized module designs that are not easily generalizable, or brittleness due to the difficulty of optimization.

    “Although prior works (Mao et al., 2019;Gupta et al., 2020;Manhaeve et al., 2021;Cai et al., 2021;Tian et al., 2022;Pryor et al., 2023) also propose neuro-symbolic methods to combine neural networks with symbolic reasoning, these methods suffer from limitations such as hand-crafted or specialized module designs that are not easily generalizable, or brittleness due to the difficulty of optimization.”

    From Logic-LM: Empowering Large Language Models with Symbolic Solvers for Faithful Logical Reasoning (2023) · cites this paper as Manhaeve et al., 2021

    The Related Work section describes limitations of some prior neuro-symbolic methods, including restricted expressivity, and §7.3 identifies an approach specialized for NLP tasks. It does not establish that prior methods generally rely on hand-crafted modules that are hard to generalize or are brittle because optimization is difficult. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. R. Manhaeve, S. Dumancic, A. Kimmig, T. Demeester, L. De Raedt, Deep- problog: Neural probabilistic logic programming, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018, pp. 3749-3759.
  2. A. Santoro, D. Raposo, D. G. Barrett, M. Malinowski, R. Pascanu, P. Battaglia, T. Lillicrap, A simple neural network module for relational reasoning, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 30, 2017, pp. 4974-4983.
  3. A. S. d. Garcez, K. B. Broda, D. M. Gabbay, Neural-symbolic learning systems: foundations and applications, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
  4. M. Bošnjak, T. Rocktäschel, S. Riedel, Programming with a differentiable forth interpreter, in: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 70, 2017, pp. 547-556.
  5. T. Rocktäschel, S. Riedel, End-to-end differentiable proving, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, 2017, pp. 3788-3800.
  6. W. W. Cohen, F. Yang, K. R. Mazaitis, Tensorlog: Deep learning meets probabilistic databases, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 1 (2018) 1-15.
  7. L. De Raedt, R. Manhaeve, S. Dumancic, T. Demeester, A. Kimmig, Neuro- symbolic= neural+ logical+ probabilistic, in: NeSy'19@ IJCAI, the 14th International Workshop on Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning, 2019, pp. 1-4.
  8. L. De Raedt, A. Kimmig, H. Toivonen, ProbLog: A probabilistic Prolog and its application in link discovery, in: IJCAI, 2007, pp. 2462-2467.
  9. Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, P. Haffner, Gradient-based learning ap- plied to document recognition, Proceedings of the IEEE 86 (1998) 2278- 2324.
  10. J. W. Lloyd, Foundations of Logic Programming, 2. ed., Springer, 1989.
  11. A. Van Gelder, K. A. Ross, J. S. Schlipf, The well-founded semantics for general logic programs, Journal of the ACM 38 (1991) 620-650.
  12. I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, A. Courville, Deep Learning, MIT Press, 2016. http://www.deeplearningbook.org.
  13. J. Pearl, Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausi- ble inference, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1988.
  14. A. Kimmig, G. Van den Broeck, L. De Raedt, Algebraic model counting, Journal of Applied Logic 22 (2017) 46-62.
  15. A. Skryagin, K. Stelzner, A. Molina, F. Ventola, Z. Yu, K. Kersting, Sum- product logic: Integrating probabilistic circuits into deepproblog, in: Work- ing Notes of the ICML 2020 Workshop on Bridge Between Perception and Reasoning: Graph Neural Networks and Beyond, 2020.
  16. A. Darwiche, P. Marquis, A knowledge compilation map, Journal of Arti- ficial Intelligence Research 17 (2002) 229-264.
  17. A. Darwiche, SDD: A new canonical representation of propositional knowl- edge bases, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-11, 2011, pp. 819-826.
  18. M. Frazier, L. Pitt, Learning from entailment: An application to proposi- tional horn sentences, in: Machine Learning, Proceedings of the Tenth In- ternational Conference, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA, June 27-29, 1993, 1993, pp. 120-127.
  19. B. Gutmann, A. Kimmig, K. Kersting, L. De Raedt, Parameter learning in probabilistic databases: A least squares approach, in: Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Springer, 2008, pp. 473-488.
  20. A. Kimmig, G. Van den Broeck, L. De Raedt, An algebraic Prolog for reasoning about possible worlds., in: AAAI, 2011.
  21. J. Eisner, Parameter estimation for probabilistic finite-state transducers, in: Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting on Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, 2002, pp. 1-8.
  22. A. Solar-Lezama, Program sketching, International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 15 (2013) 475-495.
  23. S. Reed, N. de Freitas, Neural programmer-interpreters, in: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2016.
  24. A. Bordes, N. Usunier, A. Garcia-Duran, J. Weston, O. Yakhnenko, Trans- lating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data, in: Advances in neural information processing systems, 2013, pp. 2787-2795.
  25. K. Sinha, S. Sodhani, J. Dong, J. Pineau, W. L. Hamilton, Clutrr: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text, Empirical Methods of Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (2019).
  26. K. Cho, B. Van Merriënboer, C. Gulcehre, D. Bahdanau, F. Bougares, H. Schwenk, Y. Bengio, Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder- decoder for statistical machine translation, arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1078 (2014). · arXiv
  27. A. Dries, A. Kimmig, W. Meert, J. Renkens, G. Van den Broeck, J. Vlas- selaer, L. De Raedt, Problog2: Probabilistic logic programming, in: Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Springer, 2015, pp. 312-315.
  28. A. Paszke, S. Gross, S. Chintala, G. Chanan, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, Z. Lin, A. Desmaison, L. Antiga, A. Lerer, Automatic differentiation in pytorch, in: Proceedings of the Workshop on The future of gradient-based machine learning software and techniques, co-located with the 31st Annual Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), 2017.
  29. B. Hammer, P. Hitzler, Perspectives of neural-symbolic integration, vol- ume 8, Springer Heidelberg:, 2007.
  30. L. De Raedt, R. Manhaeve, S. Dumancic, T. Demeester, A. Kimmig, Neuro- symbolic = neural + logical + probabilistic, in: NeSy'19@ IJCAI, the 14th International Workshop on Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning, 2019.
  31. T. Rocktäschel, S. Singh, S. Riedel, Injecting logical background knowledge into embeddings for relation extraction, in: NAACL HLT 2015, The 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 2015, pp. 1119-1129.
  32. T. Demeester, T. Rocktäschel, S. Riedel, Lifted rule injection for relation embeddings, in: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2016, pp. 1389-1399.
  33. P. Minervini, T. Demeester, T. Rocktäschel, S. Riedel, Adversarial sets for regularised neural link predictors, in: Proceedings of the 33rd Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), 2017.
  34. I. Donadello, L. Serafini, A. S. d'Avila Garcez, Logic tensor networks for se- mantic image interpretation, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Interna- tional Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2017, Melbourne, Australia, August 19-25, 2017, 2017, pp. 1596-1602.
  35. J. Xu, Z. Zhang, T. Friedman, Y. Liang, G. V. den Broeck, A semantic loss function for deep learning with symbolic knowledge, in: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2018, Stockholmsmässan, Stockholm, Sweden, July 10-15, 2018, 2018, pp. 5498- 5507.
  36. L. Weber, P. Minervini, J. Münchmeyer, U. Leser, T. Rocktäschel, Nl- prolog: Reasoning with weak unification for question answering in natural language, in: Proceedings of ACL 2018, Tutorial Abstracts, 2019.
  37. J. Andreas, M. Rohrbach, T. Darrell, D. Klein, Neural module networks, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016, pp. 39-48.
  38. R. Evans, E. Grefenstette, Learning explanatory rules from noisy data, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 61 (2018) 1-64.
  39. G. Šourek, V. Aschenbrenner, F. Železný, S. Schockaert, O. Kuželka, Lifted relational neural networks: Efficient learning of latent relational structures, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research to appear (2018).
  40. S. M. Kazemi, D. Poole, RelNN: A deep neural model for relational learn- ing, in: AAAI, 2018.
  41. H. Wang, H. Poon, Deep probabilistic logic: A unifying framework for indirect supervision, in: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, Belgium, October 31 - November 4, 2018, 2018, pp. 1891-1902.
  42. S. H. Bach, M. Broecheler, B. Huang, L. Getoor, Hinge-loss markov random fields and probabilistic soft logic, arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.04406 (2015). · arXiv
  43. A. Kalyan, A. Mohta, O. Polozov, D. Batra, P. Jain, S. Gulwani, Neural- guided deductive search for real-time program synthesis from examples, in: ICLR, 2018.
  44. L. Zhang, G. Rosenblatt, E. Fetaya, R. Liao, W. E. Byrd, M. Might, R. Ur- tasun, R. Zemel, Neural guided constraint logic programming for program synthesis, in: NeurIPS, 2018.
  45. K. Ellis, L. Morales, M. Sablé-Meyer, A. Solar-Lezama, J. Tenenbaum, Learning libraries of subroutines for neurally-guided bayesian program in- duction, in: NeurIPS, 2018.
  46. K. Yi, J. Wu, C. Gan, A. Torralba, P. Kohli, J. B. Tenenbaum, Neural- symbolic vqa: Disentangling reasoning from vision and language under- standing, in: NeurIPS, 2018.
  47. J. Mao, C. Gan, P. Kohli, J. B. Tenenbaum, J. Wu, The neuro-symbolic concept learner: Interpreting scenes, words, and sentences from natural supervision, in: ICLR, 2019.
  48. K. Ellis, D. Ritchie, A. Solar-Lezama, J. Tenenbaum, Learning to in- fer graphics programs from hand-drawn images, in: S. Bengio, H. Wal- lach, H. Larochelle, K. Grauman, N. Cesa-Bianchi, R. Garnett (Eds.), Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31, Curran Associates, Inc., 2018, pp. 6059-6068.
  49. S. M. Kazemi, D. Buchman, K. Kersting, S. Natarajan, D. Poole, Rela- tional logistic regression: The directed analog of markov logic networks, in: Proceedings of the 13th AAAI Conference on Statistical Relational AI, AAAIWS'14-13, AAAI Press, 2014, pp. 41-43.
  50. S. Dumančić, H. Blockeel, Clustering-based relational unsupervised rep- resentation learning with an explicit distributed representation, in: Pro- ceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17, 2017, pp. 1631-1637.
  51. A. Cropper, Playgol: Learning programs through play, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19, 2019, p. To appear.
  52. A. Kimmig, V. S. Costa, R. Rocha, B. Demoen, L. De Raedt, On the efficient execution of problog programs, in: International Conference on Logic Programming, Springer, 2008, pp. 175-189.
  53. J. Vlasselaer, G. Van den Broeck, A. Kimmig, W. Meert, L. De Raedt, Anytime inference in probabilistic logic programs with tp-compilation, in: Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Manhaeve, R., Dumančić, S., Kimmig, A., Demeester, T., & De Raedt, L.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Manhaeve, Robin
Venue
Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
298
Pages
103504
ISSN
0004-3702 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2975245087
Cited by
131
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 5
FWCI
5.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • European Research Council (ERC AdG-694980)
  • FWO
  • Vlaamse regering
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
probabilistic logic programming, ProbLog, program induction, probabilistic programming, learning from examples, end-to-end learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review