Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Bridging Logic Programming and Deep Learning for Explainability through ILASP

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A hybrid AI plan uses inductive logic programming to give neural-network predictions human-readable rules that validate them.

desk verdict A coherent doctoral research plan on neuro-symbolic explainability, but it is a plan, not a paper; the central faithfulness claim is untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09227 v1 pith:EPKH7DOJ submitted 2025-02-13 cs.LO

Talissa Dreossi (University of Udine) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LO MSC 68N1768T2768T05
keywords InductiveLogicProgrammingAnswerSetExplainableAIDeepLearningILASPFastLASNeural-SymbolicIntegrationExplainability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues for a hybrid architecture in which deep learning does the heavy prediction and inductive logic programming supplies the explanation: after a neural network outputs a decision, ILASP or FastLAS learns answer-set rules from the same data and xASP turns those rules into readable justifications. The goal is to get the accuracy of networks without the black box, in three domains: weather forecasting, Italian criminal-law interpretation, and bull spermatozoa morphology classification. Initial results reported here are treated as evidence that the pipeline is viable: FastLAS often matches the accuracy of SVM, RandomForest, and Decision Tree for rainfall prediction, and a YOLO detector reaches 68% accuracy on spermatozoa. A sympathetic reader would therefore see the contribution as a route toward AI systems whose predictions can be audited by domain experts instead of taken on faith.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Learning from Answer Sets (LAS), an ILP setting where a learning task is a tuple of background knowledge, a hypothesis space fixed by mode declarations, and weighted partial interpretations; a solution is a set of rules that covers the examples at minimum penalty. FastLAS solves such tasks with user-defined scoring functions and support for numeric comparisons, while ILASP adds recursive hypotheses through conflict-driven ILP. On the explanation side, eXplainable Answer Set Programming (xASP) converts answer sets of the learned program into directed acyclic graphs that display the dependencies behind a conclusion.

What would settle it

Take the weather or spermatozoa data, train the neural model and the ILP system on the same training folds, then measure disagreement on held-out inputs. If the rules and the network disagree on a substantial share of cases, far beyond the network's own error rate, the claim that the rules substantiate the network's conclusions is falsified; the rules would explain the data, not the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is programmatic but concrete: logic rules learned from examples, rather than weights or features inside the network, are the medium through which a hybrid system explains itself. The paper asserts that FastLAS can learn human-readable rules of the form 'past conditions predict future state' for rainfall, reaching accuracy comparable to classical machine-learning baselines; that ILASP can reconstruct the reasoning patterns behind Italian court decisions from encoded statutes and around a hundred precedents; and that a basic YOLO network already reaches 68% accuracy on spermatozoon images. If the program succeeds, every prediction in these domains comes with an answer-set justification produced by a solver rather than by introspection of the network.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the logical rules learned from a dataset truly explain the decisions of the neural network trained on that same dataset, rather than just describing the data in a different way.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Weather forecasts from the hybrid system can come with rules like 'given past temperature, humidity, and pressure conditions, rain follows', which meteorologists can read and challenge.
  • Legal decision support can flag incoherences: ILASP learning from Court of Cassation decisions already surfaced inconsistencies among previous cases.
  • Spermatozoa morphology classification can be automated, with each abnormal finding accompanied by a logic-based explanation of which morphological criteria triggered the label.
  • Scoring functions in FastLAS let users bias a learned rule set toward desired properties such as cheapest, safest, or least risky, so explanations can be tuned to the audience.
  • If FastLAS is made GPU-accelerated, the same explanation pipeline can scale to larger datasets than the current experiments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit is faithfulness: compare the learned rules against the network's own behavior on the same inputs. If the rules and the network disagree often, the rules explain the dataset, not the model, and the central promise would need to be reworded.
  • The same hybrid could be run in reverse: any input where the network and the learned rules diverge is a candidate for uncertain or out-of-distribution data, making the rule set a cheap audit layer.
  • The legal results suggest the pipeline could serve as a consistency checker for case law, not only as an explainer, by automatically flagging contradictory precedents.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is a doctoral-consortium-style research statement that proposes integrating deep learning with Inductive Logic Programming (ILP), specifically the ILASP and FastLAS systems, to provide post-hoc symbolic explanations for neural-network predictions. Three application domains are described: weather forecasting, legal reasoning about Italian law, and automated spermatozoa morphology classification using YOLO networks. The manuscript provides background on ASP, LAS/ILASP, FastLAS, CNNs, RNNs, and YOLO; outlines research goals; and reports preliminary, mostly qualitative status of ongoing work in each domain, including a 68% accuracy figure for a YOLO model and a statement that FastLAS can often reach the same accuracy as SVM, RandomForest, and Decision Tree.

Significance. The paper addresses a relevant open problem in explainable AI: producing symbolic, human-readable justifications for black-box neural predictors. If the proposed framework were realized and validated, it would be a useful contribution to neuro-symbolic XAI. The author correctly identifies a meaningful technical gap — ILP rules potentially explaining the decisions of deep models — and leverages mature tools (ILASP, FastLAS, xASP), which is a sensible starting point. However, as presented, the manuscript is a research agenda rather than a completed study: there are no reproducible experiments, no quantitative evaluation of the explanation quality, and no demonstration that the learned rules actually track the neural networks' decision boundaries. The paper's main strengths are its clear framing of the three domains, its identification of relevant prior systems, and its explicit engagement with the faithfulness problem at a conceptual level. These strengths, however, are not yet backed by the experimental evidence that a journal contribution would require.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Section 5] The central explainability claim—that ILP rules 'explain the outcome of the RNN model' and 'substantiate the network's conclusions'—is not supported by any faithfulness test. The paper never defines what it means for a learned rule set to be faithful to a neural network, nor does it measure rule-to-network agreement. The only quantitative comparison reported, that 'FastLAS can often reach the same accuracy as the other systems' (SVM, RandomForest, Decision Tree), evaluates the rules on the ground-truth labels, not on the RNN's predicted labels. A rule set can match the network's accuracy while disagreeing with it on most individual instances, so the stated post-hoc explainability promise remains unverified. The paper should include a metric such as rule accuracy evaluated on the network's predicted labels, or decision-boundary agreement, and report the results.
  2. [Section 5 (weather and legal paragraphs)] The reported results are not reproducible or quantitatively substantiated. For the weather experiments, no dataset size, number of instances, accuracy numbers, standard deviations, or test-set details are given; the description of 10-fold cross-validation with 'four days of training data per fold' is underspecified. For the legal experiments, the claim that 'the evaluation of this model showed that it was successfully able to capture the legal distinctions' is made without any reported accuracy, confusion matrix, or comparison to a baseline. The single concrete number, 'the accuracy of the current model reached 68%' for YOLO, lacks a definition of accuracy (e.g., mAP, classification accuracy, per-class accuracy), test-set size, and variance. Without these details, the paper's central claims cannot be assessed.
  3. [Section 5 (image recognition plan)] The plan to integrate ILASP with YOLO to 'learn how to identify different morphological characteristics, thereby providing explanations' does not address the grounding problem: YOLO operates on raw pixel features, whereas ILASP learns from symbolic predicates. The paper does not describe what input features or intermediate representations will be provided to ILASP, nor how the learned rules will be related to YOLO's internal feature extraction. This is a load-bearing gap because, without a concrete grounding scheme, the proposed explanation step may describe the data rather than the network's decision process. The manuscript should specify the feature engineering or propose an evaluation protocol that would test the faithfulness of the ILASP rules.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The definition of brave entailment is mis-stated: 'an atom a is bravely entailed by a program P if and only if at least one answer set P contains a' should read 'if and only if at least one answer set of P contains a.' Also, the notation for noisy LAS tasks (T noise vs. T_noise) is inconsistent within the same paragraph.
  2. [Section 1] The phrase 'The idea, that was accepted in LPNMR' is awkward; it should be 'The idea was accepted at LPNMR 2024 [18].' There is also a typo 'an view' (should be 'a view') in the organization-of-contribution sentence.
  3. [Section 3] The typo 'applyed' should be 'applied' in the sentence 'where YOLO is applyed for cell and cancer detection.'
  4. [Section 5] Figure 1 and Figure 2 are referenced but not adequately described in the text; Figure 1's 'full explanation of the answer set' is not explained, and Figure 2's example YOLO detection has no associated performance details beyond the later 68% accuracy figure.
  5. [References] Some citations appear tangential (e.g., [10], [17]) and are not clearly integrated into the argument; the distinction between peer-reviewed publications and workshop abstracts or preprints (e.g., [19]) should be clarified when describing 'results achieved.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this is a research-in-progress position paper with no derivation chain whose outputs reduce to its inputs; the explanation-faithfulness gap is a validation concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

The manuscript is a doctoral consortium / short position paper describing planned and preliminary hybrid deep-learning-plus-ILP work across three domains. It contains no formal derivations, no equations, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no imported uniqueness theorems. The closest potential issue is Section 4's statement that FastLAS will generate logic rules that are then used to 'explain the outcome of the RNN model,' while Section 5 reports only that FastLAS 'can often reach the same accuracy as the other systems' (SVM, RandomForest, Decision Tree). If the rules are learned from the same labeled meteorological data rather than from the RNN's own outputs, the resulting explanation may be unfaithful to the network; however, that is a missing faithfulness check, not a circular reduction by construction, because the learned rules are not defined in terms of, or fitted to, the RNN predictions. The self-citations ([18], [12], [16], [17], [19]) report the author's own prior preliminary results and are not used as the sole justification of the central claim without independent content. The central claim is aspirational and largely untested, but no load-bearing step in the paper reduces by definition or by self-citation to its own inputs. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is empty of fitted parameters because the paper contains no equations or quantitative derivations. The real commitments are domain assumptions about the correctness of encodings and datasets, plus the ad hoc assumption that ILP rules are faithful explanations of the neural network, which would be the first thing to test.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Stable model semantics of Gelfond-Lifschitz is the correct semantics for ASP programs.
    Section 2.1 defines stable models via the reduct and uses this definition throughout.
  • domain assumption ILASP and FastLAS correctly solve Noisy LAS tasks as defined in the cited literature.
    Section 2.2 presents LAS and Noisy LAS definitions and treats ILASP/FastLAS as reliable solvers.
  • domain assumption The Italian legal articles and Court of Cassation decisions are correctly encoded as ASP rules and examples.
    Section 5 reports a model of four articles and around one hundred precedent cases without a validation of the encoding.
  • ad hoc to paper Learned ILP rules faithfully explain a neural network's predictions.
    Sections 1 and 4 assert that ILP rules 'substantiate' or 'explain' network conclusions, but no faithfulness check is described; this is the paper's weakest premise.
  • domain assumption The weather and spermatozoa datasets are representative and correctly labeled.
    Section 5 describes data collection and a 68% accuracy figure without detailing labeling or quality controls.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging Logic Programming and Deep Learning for Explainability through ILASP." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EPKH7DOJ

@misc{pith2026250209227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging Logic Programming and Deep Learning for Explainability through ILASP},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EPKH7DOJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09227}
}
read the original abstract

My research explores integrating deep learning and logic programming to set the basis for a new generation of AI systems. By combining neural networks with Inductive Logic Programming (ILP), the goal is to construct systems that make accurate predictions and generate comprehensible rules to validate these predictions. Deep learning models process and analyze complex data, while ILP techniques derive logical rules to prove the network's conclusions. Explainable AI methods, like eXplainable Answer Set Programming (XASP), elucidate the reasoning behind these rules and decisions. The focus is on applying ILP frameworks, specifically ILASP and FastLAS, to enhance explainability in various domains. My test cases span weather prediction, the legal field, and image recognition. In weather forecasting, the system will predict events and provides explanations using FastLAS, with plans to integrate recurrent neural networks in the future. In the legal domain, the research focuses on interpreting vague decisions and assisting legal professionals by encoding Italian legal articles and learning reasoning patterns from Court of Cassation decisions using ILASP. For biological laboratories, we will collaborate with a research group to automate spermatozoa morphology classification for Bull Breeding Soundness Evaluation using YOLO networks and ILP to explain classification outcomes. This hybrid approach aims to bridge the gap between the high performance of deep learning models and the transparency of symbolic reasoning, advancing AI by providing interpretable and trustworthy applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09227 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Full explanation of the answer set and zoomed-in view of a predicate explanation by xASP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. YOLO result on bull’s spermatozoa image In both weather and legal domain, we are integrating explain￾ability systems, specifically the one developed by Alviano et al. [2], to ensure that our models provide transparent and understand￾able outputs. Indeed xASP is able to generate directed acyclic graphs which are particularly useful for representing dependen￾cies and causal relationships within a logic program. This c… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Allen (1957): Symbolic Logic: a Razor-Edged Tool For Drafting and Interpreting Legal Docu- ments

    Layman E. Allen (1957): Symbolic Logic: a Razor-Edged Tool For Drafting and Interpreting Legal Docu- ments. The Yale Law Journal 66(6), pp. 933–879, doi:10.2307/794073

    work page doi:10.2307/794073 1957

  2. [2]

    Trieu, Tran Cao Son & Marcello Balduccini (2023): Advancements in xASP, an XAI System for Answer Set Programming

    Mario Alviano, Ly Ly T. Trieu, Tran Cao Son & Marcello Balduccini (2023): Advancements in xASP, an XAI System for Answer Set Programming. In: Proceedings of the 38th Italian Conference on Computational Logic, Udine, Italy, June 21-23, 2023 , CEUR Workshop Proceedings 3428, CEUR-WS.org. Available at https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3428/paper2.pdf

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Neuro-symbolic Rule Learning in Real-world Classification Tasks

    Kexin Gu Baugh, Nuri Cingillioglu & Alessandra Russo (2023): Neuro-symbolic Rule Learning in Real- world Classification Tasks. In: Proc. of AAAI-MAKE 2023 , CEUR Workshop Proceedings 3433, CEUR- WS.org, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.16674

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.16674 2023

  4. [4]

    Causal Graph Justifications of Logic Programs

    Pedro Cabalar, Jorge Fandinno & Michael Fink (2014): Causal graph justifications of logic programs. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 14(4-5), pp. 603–618, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1409.7281

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.7281 2014

  5. [5]

    Intelligenza Artificiale 14(1), pp

    Roberta Calegari, Giovanni Ciatto & Andrea Omicini (2020): On the integration of symbolic and sub- symbolic techniques for XAI: A survey. Intelligenza Artificiale 14(1), pp. 7–32, doi:10.3233/IA-190036

    work page doi:10.3233/ia-190036 2020

  6. [6]

    Computers in Biology and Medicine 175, p

    Xi Chen, Haoyue Zheng, Haodong Tang & Fan Li (2024): Multi-scale perceptual YOLO for automatic detection of clue cells and trichomonas in fluorescence microscopic images . Computers in Biology and Medicine 175, p. 108500, doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108500

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 74, pp

    Andrew Cropper & Sebastijan Duman ˇci´c (2022): Inductive logic programming at 30: a new introduction . Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 74, pp. 765–850, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2008.07912

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2008.07912 2022

  8. [8]

    Symbolic Learning for Material Discovery

    Daniel Cunnington, Flaviu Cipcigan, Rodrigo Neumann Barros Ferreira & Jonathan Booth (2023): Symbolic Learning for Material Discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11487, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2312.11487

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.11487 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Machine Learning 112(2), pp

    Daniel Cunnington, Mark Law, Jorge Lobo & Alessandra Russo (2023): FFNSL: Feed-forward neural- symbolic learner. Machine Learning 112(2), pp. 515–569, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2106.13103. 322 Bridging Logic Programming and Deep Learning for Explainability through ILASP

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning , pp

    Fabio A D’Asaro, Matteo Spezialetti, Luca Raggioli & Silvia Rossi (2020): Towards an inductive logic programming approach for explaining black-box preference learning systems . In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reason...

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Computer Science Review 40, p

    Shi Dong, Ping Wang & Khushnood Abbas (2021): A survey on deep learning and its applications. Computer Science Review 40, p. 100379, doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100379

    2021

  4. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the 39th Italian Conference on Computational Logic, Rome, Italy, June 26-28, 2024 , CEUR Workshop Proceedings 3733, CEUR-WS.org

    Agostino Dovier, Talissa Dreossi & Andrea Formisano (2024):XAI-LAW Towards a Logic Programming Tool for Taking and Explaining Legal Decisions. In: Proceedings of the 39th Italian Conference on Computational Logic, Rome, Italy, June 26-28, 2024 , CEUR Workshop Proceedings 3733,...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Hermenegildo, Enrico Pontelli & Ricardo Rocha (2022): Parallel Logic Programming: A Sequel

    Agostino Dovier, Andrea Formisano, Gopal Gupta, Manuel V . Hermenegildo, Enrico Pontelli & Ricardo Rocha (2022): Parallel Logic Programming: A Sequel . Theory Pract. Log. Program. 22(6), pp. 905–973, doi:10.1017/S1471068422000059

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    In: Hand- book of Parallel Constraint Reasoning, Springer, pp

    Agostino Dovier, Andrea Formisano & Enrico Pontelli (2018): Parallel Answer Set Programming. In: Hand- book of Parallel Constraint Reasoning, Springer, pp. 237–282, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63516-3_7

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    In: Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages - 18th International Symposium, PADL 2016, St

    Agostino Dovier, Andrea Formisano, Enrico Pontelli & Flavio Vella (2016): A GPU Implementation of the ASP Computation. In: Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages - 18th International Symposium, PADL 2016, St. Petersburg, FL, USA, January 18-19, 2016. Proceedings, Lecture N...

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Workshop at Jurix 2023

    Manuele Dozzi, Talissa Dreossi, Federico Costantini, Agostino Dovier & Andrea Formisano (2023): Semi- automatic knowledge representation and reasoning on vagueness crime concepts. Workshop at Jurix 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    In: CEUR Workshop Proceed- ings, 3428, CEUR-WS

    Talissa Dreossi (2023): Exploring ILASP Through Logic Puzzles Modelling. In: CEUR Workshop Proceed- ings, 3428, CEUR-WS. Available at https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3428/paper14.pdf

    2023

  10. [18]

    In: Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning - 17th International Conference, LPNMR 2024, Dallas, Texas, USA, October 11-14, 2024, Proceedings, Springer

    Talissa Dreossi, Agostino Dovier, Andrea Formisano, Mark Law, Agostino Manzato, Alessandra Russo & Matthew Tait (2024): Towards Explainable Weather Forecasting Through FastLAS. In: Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning - 17th International Conference, LPNMR 2024, Dallas...

    2024

  11. [19]

    In: Book of Ab- stracts, ESCIM 2024, Krakow , p

    Talissa Dreossi, Manuele Dozzi, Luca Baron, Agostino Dovier, Andrea Formisano & Federico Costantini (2024): Semi-automatic knowledge representation and reasoning on vague crime concepts. In: Book of Ab- stracts, ESCIM 2024, Krakow , p. 31. Available at http://escim2024.uca.es/...

    2024

  12. [20]

    In: 2021 Third IEEE International Con- ference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (TPS-ISA) , pp

    Arthur Drozdov, Mark Law, Jorge Lobo, Alessandra Russo & Mercion Wilathgamuwage Don (2021): On- line Symbolic Learning of Policies for Explainable Security . In: 2021 Third IEEE International Con- ference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 19(2), p

    Jorge Fandinno & Claudia Schulz (2019): Answering the “why” in answer set programming – A survey of explanation approaches . Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 19(2), p. 114–203, doi:10.1017/S1471068418000534

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    In: ICLP/SLP, 88, Cambridge, MA, pp

    Michael Gelfond & Vladimir Lifschitz (1988): The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: ICLP/SLP, 88, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1070–1080, doi:10.2307/2275201

    1988 doi

  15. [23]

    Forouzan Golshani (1991): Automated construction of legal arguments. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 6(6), pp. 673–685, doi:10.1002/INT.4550060605

    1991 doi

  16. [24]

    Sensors 22(21), p

    Lei Huang & Wenzhun Huang (2022): RD-YOLO: An effective and efficient object detector for roadside perception system. Sensors 22(21), p. 8097, doi:10.3390/s22218097

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Procedia computer science 199, pp

    Peiyuan Jiang, Daji Ergu, Fangyao Liu, Ying Cai & Bo Ma (2022):A Review of Yolo algorithm developments. Procedia computer science 199, pp. 1066–1073, doi:10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.135

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802270

    Eugenia Kalnay (2002): Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictability. Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/CBO9780511802270. T. Dreossi 323

    2002 doi

  19. [27]

    Kowalski & Marek J

    Robert A. Kowalski & Marek J. Sergot (1985): Computer Representation of the Law . In: Proceedings of the 9th IJCAI. Los Angeles, CA, USA, August 1985 , Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 1269–1270. Available at http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/85-2/Papers/114.pdf

    1985

  20. [28]

    Authorea Preprints

    Zachary M Labe, Nathaniel Johnson & Thomas L Delworth (2023): Changes in United States summer tem- peratures revealed by explainable neural networks. Authorea Preprints

    2023

  21. [29]

    Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 23(2), pp

    Mark Law (2023): Conflict-driven inductive logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 23(2), pp. 387–414, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2101.00058

    2023 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    In: Proc

    Mark Law, Alessandra Russo, Elisa Bertino, Krysia Broda & Jorge Lobo (2020): Fastlas: Scalable inductive logic programming incorporating domain-specific optimisation criteria . In: Proc. of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 34, pp. 2877–2885, doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i03.5678

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    In: Logics in Artificial Intelligence, JELIA 2014, Springer, pp

    Mark Law, Alessandra Russo & Krysia Broda (2014): Inductive learning of answer set programs. In: Logics in Artificial Intelligence, JELIA 2014, Springer, pp. 311–325, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11558-0_22

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.08441, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1808.08441

    Mark Law, Alessandra Russo & Krysia Broda (2018): Inductive learning of answer set programs from noisy examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.08441, doi:10.48550/arXiv.1808.08441

    2018 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00904, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2005.00904

    Mark Law, Alessandra Russo & Krysia Broda (2020): The ILASP system for inductive learning of answer set programs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00904, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2005.00904

    2020 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    nature 521(7553), pp

    Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio & Geoffrey Hinton (2015): Deep learning. nature 521(7553), pp. 436–444, doi:10.1038/nature14539

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    Science Advances 10(13), doi:10.1126/sciadv.adk4489

    Lizao Li, Robert Carver, Ignacio Lopez-Gomez, Fei Sha & John Anderson (2024): Generative emulation of weather forecast ensembles with diffusion models. Science Advances 10(13), doi:10.1126/sciadv.adk4489

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 98(10), pp

    Amy McGovern (2017): Using artificial intelligence to improve real-time decision-making for high-impact weather. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 98(10), pp. 2073–2090, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D- 16-0123.1

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    Muggleton (1991): Inductive Logic Programming

    Stephen H. Muggleton (1991): Inductive Logic Programming . New Gener. Comput. 8(4), pp. 295–318, doi:10.1007/BF03037089

    1991 doi

  30. [38]

    Alessandro Dal Palù, Agostino Dovier, Andrea Formisano & Enrico Pontelli (2015): CUD@SAT: SAT solv- ing on GPUs. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 27(3), pp. 293–316, doi:10.1080/0952813X.2014.954274

    2015

  31. [39]

    Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 115(39), pp

    Stephan Rasp, Michael S Pritchard & Pierre Gentine (2018): Deep learning to represent subgrid pro- cesses in climate models . Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 115(39), pp. 9684–9689, doi:10.1073/pnas.1810286115

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp

    Joseph Redmon, Santosh Divvala, Ross Girshick & Ali Farhadi (2016): You only look once: Unified, real- time object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 779–788, doi:10.1109/CVPR.2016.91

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Dávila, Marco Billi, Giuseppe Contissa, Giuseppe Pisano & Robert A

    Galileo Sartor, Jacinto A. Dávila, Marco Billi, Giuseppe Contissa, Giuseppe Pisano & Robert A. Kowalski (2022): Integration of Logical English and s(CASP) . In: Proceedings of the ICLP 2022 Workshops co- located with the 38th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP...

    2022

  34. [42]

    Jonathan A Weyn, Dale R Durran & Rich Caruana (2019): Can machines learn to predict weather? Using deep learning to predict gridded 500-hPa geopotential height from historical weather data . J. of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 11(8), pp. 2680–2693, doi:10.1029/2019MS001705

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Jonathan A Weyn, Dale R Durran & Rich Caruana (2020): Improving data-driven global weather prediction using deep convolutional neural networks on a cubed sphere . J. of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 12(9), doi:10.1029/2020MS002109

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology , pp

    Yunfeng Yang & Jiaqi Wang (2024): Research on breast cancer pathological image classification method based on wavelet transform and YOLOv8 . Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology , pp. 1–11, doi:10.3233/XST-230296

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.