Hypothesis generation via LLM-automated language bias for ILP
Open accessAbstract
Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) is a principled approach for generalizing regularities from data and constructing hypotheses as interpretable logic programs. However, a key limitation is its reliance on expert-crafted language bias - the predicate inventory, types, and mode declarations that delimit the search space. We propose hypothesis generation via LLM-automated language bias: multi-agent LLMs design the bias from raw text and translate descriptions into typed facts, and a robust ILP solver induces rules under a global consistency objective. This approach reduces traditional ILP's reliance on predefined symbolic structures and the noise sensitivity of LLM-only pipelines that directly generate hypotheses as text or code. Extensive experiments in diverse, challenging scenarios validate superior performance, providing a practical, explainable, and verifiable route to hypothesis generation.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Yang et al.'s generated predicates correspond only to explicit surface-level patterns; implicit relations requiring cross-example reasoning remain outside their scope.
“However, the generated predicates correspond only to explicit surface-level patterns; implicit relations requiring cross-example reasoning remain outside their scope.”
From ADVENT: LLM-Driven Automatic Predicate Invention for ILP (2026) · cites this paper as [14]
Section 5.1 describes ZENDO as involving binary predicates and complex logical relations, while Section 6.1.2 says the authors’ method maintains robust performance on that task. Section 4.3 says the generated predicate system is supplied with facts to an ILP solver that learns rules from the examples. Although the predicates are designed from text, the paper does not confine the method to surface-level patterns or place cross-example reasoning outside its scope. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredYang et al. proposed a multiagent LLM framework to automatically build BK and language bias from natural-language descriptions of data attributes, substantially reducing manual BK design.
“Yang et al. [14] proposed a multiagent LLM framework to automatically build BK and language bias from natural-language descriptions of data attributes, substantially reducing manual BK design.”
From ADVENT: LLM-Driven Automatic Predicate Invention for ILP (2026) · cites this paper as [14]
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Andrew Cropper and Sebastijan Dumančić. Inductive logic programming at 30: a new introduc- tion. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 74:765-850, 2022.
- Andrew Cropper and Rolf Morel. Learning programs by learning from failures. Machine Learning, 110(4):801-856, 2021.
- Richard Evans and Edward Grefenstette. Learning explanatory rules from noisy data. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 61:1-64, 2018.
- Claire Glanois, Zhaohui Jiang, Xuening Feng, Paul Weng, Matthieu Zimmer, Dong Li, Wulong Liu, and Jianye Hao. Neuro-symbolic hierarchical rule induction. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 7583-7615. PMLR, 2022.
- Céline Hocquette, Andreas Niskanen, Matti Järvisalo, and Andrew Cropper. Learning mdl logic programs from noisy data. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 10553-10561, 2024.
- Dongwei Jiang, Marcio Fonseca, and Shay B Cohen. Leanreasoner: Boosting complex logical reasoning with lean. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13312, 2024. · arXiv
- Aditya Kalyanpur, Kailash Karthik Saravanakumar, Victor Barres, Jennifer Chu-Carroll, David Melville, and David Ferrucci. Llm-arc: Enhancing llms with an automated reasoning critic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17663, 2024. · arXiv
- Brenden M Lake, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. Human-level concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science, 350(6266):1332-1338, 2015.
- Mark Law, Alessandra Russo, and Krysia Broda. Inductive learning of answer set programs. In Logics in Artificial Intelligence: 14th European Conference, JELIA 2014, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, September 24-26, 2014. Proceedings 14, pages 311-325. Springer, 2014.
- Benjamin Letham, Cynthia Rudin, Tyler H McCormick, and David Madigan. Interpretable classifiers using rules and bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction model. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 9(3):1350-1371, 2015.
- Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437, 2024. · arXiv
- Linhao Luo, Jiaxin Ju, Bo Xiong, Yuan-Fang Li, Gholamreza Haffari, and Shirui Pan. Chatrule: Mining logical rules with large language models for knowledge graph reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01538, 2023. · arXiv
- Matthias Nickles and Alessandra Mileo. A hybrid approach to inference in probabilistic non-monotonic logic programming. In PLP@ ICLP, pages 57-68, 2015.
- Theo X Olausson, Alex Gu, Benjamin Lipkin, Cedegao E Zhang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Roger Levy. Linc: A neurosymbolic approach for logical reasoning by combining language models with first-order logic provers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15164, 2023. · arXiv
- Linlu Qiu, Liwei Jiang, Ximing Lu, Melanie Sclar, Valentina Pyatkin, Chandra Bhagavatula, Bailin Wang, Yoon Kim, Yejin Choi, Nouha Dziri, et al. Phenomenal yet puzzling: Testing inductive reasoning capabilities of language models with hypothesis refinement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08559, 2023. · arXiv
- Cynthia Rudin. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature machine intelligence, 1(5):206-215, 2019.
- Prithviraj Sen, Breno WSR de Carvalho, Ryan Riegel, and Alexander Gray. Neuro-symbolic in- ductive logic programming with logical neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 36, pages 8212-8219, 2022.
- Ashwin Srinivasan. The aleph manual. Technical report, University of Oxford, 2001. Version 4.4.
- An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115, 2024. · arXiv
- Zonglin Yang, Wanhao Liu, Ben Gao, Tong Xie, Yuqiang Li, Wanli Ouyang, Soujanya Poria, Erik Cambria, and Dongzhan Zhou. Moose-chem: Large language models for rediscovering unseen chemistry scientific hypotheses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07076, 2024. · arXiv
- Andreas Zeller. Why programs fail: a guide to systematic debugging. Morgan Kaufmann, 2009.
- Yangqiaoyu Zhou, Haokun Liu, Tejes Srivastava, Hongyuan Mei, and Chenhao Tan. Hypothesis generation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04326, 2024. · arXiv
- Zhaocheng Zhu, Yuan Xue, Xinyun Chen, Denny Zhou, Jian Tang, Dale Schuurmans, and Hanjun Dai. Large language models can learn rules. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07064, 2023. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ADVENT: LLM-Driven Automatic Predicate Invention for ILP
Yu, T., Huang, P.-C., Hsu, C., Ku, C.-T., & Kang, Y. (2026) · 2026 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration for Data Science (IRI) · doi:10.1109/iri69576.2026.00025
- Authors
- Yang, Y., Wu, J., & Yue, Y.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2505.21486
- OpenAlex
- W4415037601
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Keywords
- inductive logic programming, hypothesis generation, language bias, large language models, multi-agent LLM systems, rule induction, global consistency, search space design
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
