|
|
|
|
|
by nimithryn
2714 days ago
|
|
>>>Don't expect the industry to lead this effort, though. The industry sees the reliance on large datasets as something to be exploited for a competitive advantage. This is only true for the Facebooks and Googles of the world. There are definitely small companies (like the one I work for) trying very hard to figure out how to build models that use less data because we don't have access to those large datasets. The industry is larger than just the Big N. |
|
I study ILP algorithms for my PhD. My research group has recently developed a new technique, Meta Interpretive Learning. Its canonical implementation is Metagol:
https://github.com/metagol/metagol
Please feel free to email me if you need more details. My address is in my profile.
___________________
[1] As a source of this claim I always quote this DeepMind paper where Metagol is compared to the authors' own system (which is itself an ILP system, but using a deep neural net):
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04574
ILP has a number of appealing features. First, the learned program is an explicit symbolic structure that can be inspected, understood, and verified. Second, ILP systems tend to be impressively data-efficient, able to generalise well from a small handful of examples. The reason for this data-efficiency is that ILP imposes a strong language bias on the sorts of programs that can be learned: a short general program will be preferred to a program consisting of a large number of special-case ad-hoc rules that happen to cover the training data. Third, ILP systems support continual and transfer learning. The program learned in one training session, being declarative and free of side-effects, can be copied and pasted into the knowledge base before the next training session, providing an economical way of storing learned knowledge.