Inductive learning of answer set programs for autonomous surgical task planning

The quality of robot-assisted surgery can be improved and the use of hospital resources can be optimized by enhancing autonomy and reliability in the robot’s operation. Logic programming is a good choice for task planning in robot-assisted surgery because it supports reliable reasoning with domain knowledge and increases transparency in the decision making. However, prior knowledge of the task and the domain is typically incomplete, and it often needs to be refined from executions of the surgical task(s) under consideration to avoid sub-optimal performance. In this paper, we investigate the applicability of inductive logic programming for learning previously unknown axioms governing domain dynamics. We do so under answer set semantics for a benchmark surgical training task, the ring transfer. We extend our previous work on learning the immediate preconditions of actions and constraints, to also learn axioms encoding arbitrary temporal delays between atoms that are effects of actions under the event calculus formalism. We propose a systematic approach for learning the specifications of a generic robotic task under the answer set semantics, allowing easy knowledge refinement with iterative learning. In the context of 1000 simulated scenarios, we demonstrate the significant improvement in performance obtained with the learned axioms compared with the hand-written ones; specifically, the learned axioms address some critical issues related to the plan computation time, which is promising for reliable real-time performance during surgery

Inductive logic programming at 30

Inductive logic programming (ILP) is a form of logic-based machine learning. The goal of ILP is to induce a hypothesis (a logic program) that generalises given training examples and background knowledge. As ILP turns 30, we survey recent work in the field. In this survey, we focus on (i) new meta-level search methods, (ii) techniques for learning recursive programs that generalise from few examples, (iii) new approaches for predicate invention, and (iv) the use of different technologies, notably answer set programming and neural networks. We conclude by discussing some of the current limitations of ILP and discuss directions for future research.Comment: Extension of IJCAI20 survey paper. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2002.11002, arXiv:2008.0791

Best-effort inductive logic programming via fine-grained cost-based hypothesis generation The Inspire system at the inductive logic programming competition

We describe the Inspire system which participated in the first competition on inductive logic programming (ILP). Inspire is based on answer set programming (ASP). The distinguishing feature of Inspire is an ASP encoding for hypothesis space generation: given a set of facts representing the mode bias, and a set of cost configuration parameters, each answer set of this encoding represents a single rule that is considered for finding a hypothesis that entails the given examples. Compared with state-of-the-art methods that use the length of the rule body as a metric for rule complexity, our approach permits a much more fine-grained specification of the shape of hypothesis candidate rules. The Inspire system iteratively increases the rule cost limit and thereby increases the search space until it finds a suitable hypothesis. The system searches for a hypothesis that entails a single example at a time, utilizing an ASP encoding derived from the encoding used in XHAIL. We perform experiments with the development and test set of the ILP competition. For comparison we also adapted the ILASP system to process competition instances. Experimental results show that the cost parameters for the hypothesis search space are an important factor for finding hypotheses to competition instances within tight resource bounds

Best-effort inductive logic programming via fine-grained cost-based hypothesis generation the Inspire system at the inductive logic programming competition

We describe the Inspire system which participated in the first competition on inductive logic programming (ILP). Inspire is based on answer set programming (ASP). The distinguishing feature of Inspire is an ASP encoding for hypothesis space generation: given a set of facts representing the mode bias, and a set of cost configuration parameters, each answer set of this encoding represents a single rule that is considered for finding a hypothesis that entails the given examples. Compared with state-of-the-art methods that use the length of the rule body as a metric for rule complexity, our approach permits a much more fine-grained specification of the shape of hypothesis candidate rules. The Inspire system iteratively increases the rule cost limit and thereby increases the search space until it finds a suitable hypothesis. The system searches for a hypothesis that entails a single example at a time, utilizing an ASP encoding derived from the encoding used in XHAIL. We perform experiments with the development and test set of the ILP competition. For comparison we also adapted the ILASP system to process competition instances. Experimental results show that the cost parameters for the hypothesis search space are an important factor for finding hypotheses to competition instances within tight resource bounds

Inductive logic programming as satisfiability modulo theories

At the intersection of machine learning, program synthesis and automated reasoning lies the field of Inductive Logic Programming (ILP). The aim of ILP is to automatically learn relational programs from input/output examples, typically through logic-based techniques. Inspired by Karl Popper’s falsification perspective on science, this dissertation sets out a new approach to ILP: Learning From Failures (LFF). In science, starting from a huge set of a priori viable hypotheses, we select a hypothesis to test. This hypothesis typically gets falsified due to failing in some specific way. By examining the failure we learn that an entire space of related hypotheses is now ruled out. Having thus reduced our set of viable hypotheses, we subsequently select from just those that remain. LFF applies this methodology to program induction, codifying it as a three-stage loop. The generate stage maintains a formula whose satisfying assignments correspond to the set of viable hypotheses. The test stage takes a satisfying assignment, interprets it as a logic program and tests it against training examples – imperfect fit is considered a failure. The constrain stage turns a failure into constraints to add to the generate stage’s formula, thereby eliminating a class of hypotheses which will fail for the same reason. The thesis of this dissertation is three-fold. The first claim is that LFF frames the ILP problem as one of Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT). With the search for viable hypotheses handed-off to a SAT-solver, the test stage can be regarded as a theory solver collaborating with the SAT-solver, effectively making ILP’s notion of background knowledge into a (Horn) background theory. The second claim is that LFF’s three-stage loop is an effective basis for falsification-based program induction. Chapter 4 develops the above correspondence into a feature-rich and flexible three-stage ILP system. Experimental evidence is provided for this system going beyond the state-of-the-art in ILP, e.g., by supporting large hypothesis spaces and large domains. The third claim is that the LFF-as-SMT-perspective helps apply satisfiability solving techniques to ILP, in particular to reduce hypothesis space exploration. In Chapter 5, we show that SMT-based techniques for explaining conflicts have a natural analog in terms of explaining which parts of a hypothesis are responsible for its failure. In Chapter 6, we incorporate other theory solvers alongside the test stage to reason about the (satisfiability of) over-approximating properties of hypotheses. We show that both of these techniques can significantly reduce the number of iterations of the three-stage loop