Adbuctive Markov Logic for Plan Recognition Parag Singla & Raymond J. Mooney Dept. of Computer Science University of Texas, Austin.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Online Max-Margin Weight Learning with Markov Logic Networks Tuyen N. Huynh and Raymond J. Mooney Machine Learning Group Department of Computer Science.

Advertisements

Joint Inference in Information Extraction Hoifung Poon Dept. Computer Science & Eng. University of Washington (Joint work with Pedro Domingos)

Big Ideas in Cmput366. Search Blind Search State space representation Iterative deepening Heuristic Search A*, f(n)=g(n)+h(n), admissible heuristics Local.

CSE 473/573 Computer Vision and Image Processing (CVIP) Ifeoma Nwogu Lecture 27 – Overview of probability concepts 1.

Discriminative Training of Markov Logic Networks

University of Texas at Austin Machine Learning Group Department of Computer Sciences University of Texas at Austin Discriminative Structure and Parameter.

Bayesian Abductive Logic Programs Sindhu Raghavan Raymond J. Mooney The University of Texas at Austin 1.

Online Max-Margin Weight Learning for Markov Logic Networks Tuyen N. Huynh and Raymond J. Mooney Machine Learning Group Department of Computer Science.

Coreference Based Event-Argument Relation Extraction on Biomedical Text Katsumasa Yoshikawa 1), Sebastian Riedel 2), Tsutomu Hirao 3), Masayuki Asahara.

Jointly Identifying Temporal Relations with Markov Logic Katsumasa Yoshikawa †, Sebastian Riedel ‡, Masayuki Asahara †, Yuji Matsumoto † † Nara Institute.

Rulebase Expert System and Uncertainty. Rule-based ES Rules as a knowledge representation technique Type of rules :- relation, recommendation, directive,

Markov Logic Networks: Exploring their Application to Social Network Analysis Parag Singla Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of.

Everything You Need to Know (since the midterm). Diagnosis Abductive diagnosis: a minimal set of (positive and negative) assumptions that entails the.

Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBNs)

Markov Logic Networks Instructor: Pedro Domingos.

Department of Computer Science The University of Texas at Austin Probabilistic Abduction using Markov Logic Networks Rohit J. Kate Raymond J. Mooney.

Chapter 15 Probabilistic Reasoning over Time. Chapter 15, Sections 1-5 Outline Time and uncertainty Inference: ltering, prediction, smoothing Hidden Markov.

Markov Logic: Combining Logic and Probability Parag Singla Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Delhi.

1 Unsupervised Semantic Parsing Hoifung Poon and Pedro Domingos EMNLP 2009 Best Paper Award Speaker: Hao Xiong.

Review Markov Logic Networks Mathew Richardson Pedro Domingos Xinran(Sean) Luo, u

Speeding Up Inference in Markov Logic Networks by Preprocessing to Reduce the Size of the Resulting Grounded Network Jude Shavlik Sriraam Natarajan Computer.

A Probabilistic Framework for Semi-Supervised Clustering

Efficient Weight Learning for Markov Logic Networks Daniel Lowd University of Washington (Joint work with Pedro Domingos)

Markov Logic: A Unifying Framework for Statistical Relational Learning Pedro Domingos Matthew Richardson

Speaker:Benedict Fehringer Seminar:Probabilistic Models for Information Extraction by Dr. Martin Theobald and Maximilian Dylla Based on Richards, M., and.

Outline Recap Knowledge Representation I Textbook: Chapters 6, 7, 9 and 10.

A Probabilistic Framework for Information Integration and Retrieval on the Semantic Web by Livia Predoiu, Heiner Stuckenschmidt Institute of Computer Science,

Computer Intelligence and Soft Computing

Relational Data Mining in Finance Haonan Zhang CFWin /04/2003.

CSE 574 – Artificial Intelligence II Statistical Relational Learning Instructor: Pedro Domingos.

1 Learning Entity Specific Models Stefan Niculescu Carnegie Mellon University November, 2003.

CSE 574: Artificial Intelligence II Statistical Relational Learning Instructor: Pedro Domingos.

Semantics For the Semantic Web: The Implicit, the Formal and The Powerful Amit Sheth, Cartic Ramakrishnan, Christopher Thomas CS751 Spring 2005 Presenter:

Marakas: Decision Support Systems, 2nd Edition © 2003, Prentice-Hall Chapter Chapter 7: Expert Systems and Artificial Intelligence Decision Support.

Relational Models. CSE 515 in One Slide We will learn to: Put probability distributions on everything Learn them from data Do inference with them.

On the Proper Treatment of Quantifiers in Probabilistic Logic Semantics Islam Beltagy and Katrin Erk The University of Texas at Austin IWCS 2015.

1 Learning the Structure of Markov Logic Networks Stanley Kok & Pedro Domingos Dept. of Computer Science and Eng. University of Washington.

Statistical Relational Learning Pedro Domingos Dept. Computer Science & Eng. University of Washington.

Selective Sampling on Probabilistic Labels Peng Peng, Raymond Chi-Wing Wong CSE, HKUST 1.

Boosting Markov Logic Networks

Inductive Logic Programming Includes slides by Luis Tari CS7741L16ILP.

Chapter 3: Methods of Inference

Markov Logic Parag Singla Dept. of Computer Science University of Texas, Austin.

Bayesian Learning By Porchelvi Vijayakumar. Cognitive Science Current Problem: How do children learn and how do they get it right?

Dr. Matthew Iklé Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Adams State College Probabilistic Quantifier Logic for General Intelligence: An Indefinite.

Extending Bayesian Logic Programs for Plan Recognition and Machine Reading Sindhu V. Raghavan Advisor: Raymond Mooney PhD Proposal May 12 th,

Bayesian Logic Programs for Plan Recognition and Machine Reading Sindhu Raghavan Advisor: Raymond Mooney PhD Oral Defense Nov 29 th,

K. J. O’Hara AMRS: Behavior Recognition and Opponent Modeling Oct Behavior Recognition and Opponent Modeling in Autonomous Multi-Robot Systems.

Recognizing Activities of Daily Living from Sensor Data Henry Kautz Department of Computer Science University of Rochester.

Kansas State University Department of Computing and Information Sciences CIS 830: Advanced Topics in Artificial Intelligence Friday, February 4, 2000 Lijun.

Markov Logic And other SRL Approaches

Knowledge Repn. & Reasoning Lec #11: Partitioning & Treewidth UIUC CS 498: Section EA Professor: Eyal Amir Fall Semester 2004.

Learning to “Read Between the Lines” using Bayesian Logic Programs Sindhu Raghavan, Raymond Mooney, and Hyeonseo Ku The University of Texas at Austin July.

Estimating Component Availability by Dempster-Shafer Belief Networks Estimating Component Availability by Dempster-Shafer Belief Networks Lan Guo Lane.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [INTELLIGENT AGENTS PARADIGM] Professor Janis Grundspenkis Riga Technical University Faculty of Computer Science and Information.

Computing & Information Sciences Kansas State University Lecture 14 of 42 CIS 530 / 730 Artificial Intelligence Lecture 14 of 42 William H. Hsu Department.

Logical Agents Chapter 7. Outline Knowledge-based agents Logic in general Propositional (Boolean) logic Equivalence, validity, satisfiability.

Modeling Speech Acts and Joint Intentions in Modal Markov Logic Henry Kautz University of Washington.

CHAPTER 8 DISCRIMINATIVE CLASSIFIERS HIDDEN MARKOV MODELS.

The famous “sprinkler” example (J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems, 1988)

Tractable Inference for Complex Stochastic Processes X. Boyen & D. Koller Presented by Shiau Hong Lim Partially based on slides by Boyen & Koller at UAI.

Abductive Plan Recognition By Extending Bayesian Logic Programs Sindhu V. Raghavan & Raymond J. Mooney The University of Texas at Austin 1.

1 Propositional Logic Limits The expressive power of propositional logic is limited. The assumption is that everything can be expressed by simple facts.

Happy Mittal (Joint work with Prasoon Goyal, Parag Singla and Vibhav Gogate) IIT Delhi New Rules for Domain Independent Lifted.

Scalable Statistical Relational Learning for NLP William Y. Wang William W. Cohen Machine Learning Dept and Language Technologies Inst. joint work with:

A User-Guided Approach to Program Analysis Ravi Mangal, Xin Zhang, Mayur Naik Georgia Tech Aditya Nori Microsoft Research.

New Rules for Domain Independent Lifted MAP Inference

An Introduction to Markov Logic Networks in Knowledge Bases

CS 4700: Foundations of Artificial Intelligence

Probabilistic Horn abduction and Bayesian Networks

Presentation transcript:

Adbuctive Markov Logic for Plan Recognition Parag Singla & Raymond J. Mooney Dept. of Computer Science University of Texas, Austin

Motivation [ Blaylock & Allen 2005] Road Blocked!

Heavy Snow; Hazardous Driving Motivation [ Blaylock & Allen 2005]

Road Blocked! Heavy Snow; Hazardous DrivingAccident; Crew is Clearing the Wreck Motivation [ Blaylock & Allen 2005]

Abduction Given: Background knowledge A set of observations To Find: Best set of explanations given the background knowledge and the observations

Previous Approaches Purely logic based approaches [Pople 1973] Perform backward “logical” reasoning Can not handle uncertainty Purely probabilistic approaches [Pearl 1988] Can not handle structured representations Recent Approaches Bayesian Abductive Logic Programs (BALP) [Raghavan & Mooney, 2010]

An Important Problem A variety of applications Plan Recognition Intent Recognition Medical Diagnosis Fault Diagnosis More.. Plan Recognition Given planning knowledge and a set of low-level actions, identify the top level plan

Outline Motivation Background Markov Logic for Abduction Experiments Conclusion & Future Work

Markov Logic [Richardson & Domingos 06] A logical KB is a set of hard constraints on the set of possible worlds Let’s make them soft constraints: When a world violates a formula, It becomes less probable, not impossible Give each formula a weight (Higher weight  Stronger constraint)

Definition A Markov Logic Network (MLN) is a set of pairs (F, w) where F is a formula in first-order logic w is a real number

Definition A Markov Logic Network (MLN) is a set of pairs (F, w) where F is a formula in first-order logic w is a real number heavy_snow(loc)  drive_hazard(loc)  block_road(loc) accident(loc)  clear_wreck(crew, loc)  block_road(loc)

Definition A Markov Logic Network (MLN) is a set of pairs (F, w) where F is a formula in first-order logic w is a real number 1.5 heavy_snow(loc)  drive_hazard(loc)  block_road(loc) 2.0 accident(loc)  clear_wreck(crew, loc)  block_road(loc)

Outline Motivation Background Markov Logic for Abduction Experiments Conclusion & Future Work

Abduction using Markov logic Express the theory in Markov logic Sound combination of first-order logic rules Use existing machinery for learning and inference Problem Markov logic is deductive in nature Does not support adbuction as is!

Abduction using Markov logic Given heavy_snow(loc)  drive_hazard(loc)  block_road(loc) accident(loc)  clear_wreck(crew, loc)  block_road(loc) Observation: block_road(plaza)

Abduction using Markov logic Given heavy_snow(loc)  drive_hazard(loc)  block_road(loc) accident(loc)  clear_wreck(crew, loc)  block_road(loc) Observation: block_road(plaza) Rules are true independent of antecedents Need to go from effect to cause Idea of hidden cause Reverse implication over hidden causes

Introducing Hidden Cause heavy_snow(loc)  drive_hazard(loc)  block_road(loc) heavy_snow(loc)  drive_hazard(loc)  rb_C1(loc) rb_C1(loc) Hidden Cause

Introducing Hidden Cause heavy_snow(loc)  drive_hazard(loc)  block_road(loc) heavy_snow(loc)  drive_hazard(loc)  rb_C1(loc) rb_C1(loc) Hidden Cause rb_C1(loc)  block_road(loc)

Introducing Hidden Cause heavy_snow(loc)  drive_hazard(loc)  block_road(loc) heavy_snow(loc)  drive_hazard(loc)  rb_C1(loc) rb_C1(loc)  block_road(loc) accident(loc)  clear_wreck(crew, loc)  block_road(loc) accident(loc)  clear_wreck(crew, loc)  rb_C2(crew, loc) rb_C2(loc, crew) rb_C2(crew, loc)  block_road(loc)

Introducing Reverse Implication block_road(loc)  rb_C1(loc) v (  crew rb_C2(crew, loc)) Explanation 2: accident(loc)  clear_wreck(crew, loc)  rb_C2(crew, loc) Explanation 1: heavy_snow(loc)  clear_wreck(loc)  rb_C1(loc) Multiple causes combined via reverse implication

Introducing Reverse Implication block_road(loc)  rb_C1(loc) v (  crew rb_C2(crew, loc)) Multiple causes combined via reverse implication Existential quantification Explanation 2: accident(loc)  clear_wreck(crew, loc)  rb_C2(crew, loc) Explanation 1: heavy_snow(loc)  clear_wreck(loc)  rb_C1(loc)

Existential quantification Low-Prior on Hidden Causes block_road(loc)  rb_C1(loc) v (  crew rb_C2(crew, loc)) Multiple causes combined via reverse implication -w1 rb_C1(loc) -w2 rb_C2(loc, crew) Explanation 2: accident(loc)  clear_wreck(crew, loc)  rb_C2(crew, loc) Explanation 1: heavy_snow(loc)  clear_wreck(loc)  rb_C1(loc)

Avoiding the Blow-up drive_hazard (Plaza) heavy_snow (Plaza) accident (Plaza) clear_wreck (Tcrew, Plaza) rb_C1 (Plaza) rb_C2 (Tcrew, Plaza) block_road (Tcrew, Plaza) Hidden Cause Model Max clique size = 3

Avoiding the Blow-up drive_hazard (Plaza) heavy_snow (Plaza) accident (Plaza) clear_wreck (Tcrew, Plaza) drive_hazard (Plaza) heavy_snow (Plaza) accident (Plaza) clear_wreck (Tcrew, Plaza) rb_C1 (Plaza) rb_C2 (Tcrew, Plaza) block_road (Tcrew, Plaza) block_road (Tcrew, Plaza) Pair-wise Constraints [Kate & Mooney 2009] Max clique size = 5 Hidden Cause Model Max clique size = 3

Constructing Abductive MLN Given n explanations for Q:

Constructing Abductive MLN Given n explanations for Q: 1.Introduce a hidden cause C i for each explanation.

Constructing Abductive MLN Given n explanations for Q: 1.Introduce a hidden cause C i for each explanation. 2.Introduce the following sets of rules:

Constructing Abductive MLN Given n explanations for Q: 1.Introduce a hidden cause C i for each explanation. 2.Introduce the following sets of rules: Equivalence between clause body and hidden cause. soft clause

Constructing Abductive MLN Given n explanations for Q: 1.Introduce a hidden cause C i for each explanation. 2.Introduce the following sets of rules: Equivalence between clause body and hidden cause. soft clause Implicating the effect. hard clause

Constructing Abductive MLN Given n explanations for Q: 1.Introduce a hidden cause C i for each explanation. 2.Introduce the following sets of rules: Equivalence between clause body and hidden cause. soft clause Implicating the effect. hard clause Reverse Implication. hard clause

Constructing Abductive MLN Given n explanations for Q: 1.Introduce a hidden cause C i for each explanation. 2.Introduce the following sets of rules: Equivalence between clause body and hidden cause. soft clause Implicating the effect. hard clause Reverse Implication. hard clause Low Prior on hidden causes. soft clause

Adbuctive Model Construction Grounding out the full network may be costly Many irrelevant nodes/clauses are created Complicates learning/inference Can focus the grounding Knowledge Based Model Construction (KBMC) (Logical) backward chaining to get proof trees Stickel [1988] Use only the nodes appearing in the proof trees

Abductive Model Construction Observation: block_road(Plaza)

Abductive Model Construction block_road (Plaza) Observation: block_road(Plaza)

Abductive Model Construction block_road (Plaza) heavy_snow (Plaza) drive_hazard (Plaza) Observation: block_road(Plaza)

Abductive Model Construction block_road (Mall) heavy_snow (Mall) drive_hazard (Mall) Constants: Mall block_road (Plaza) heavy_snow (Plaza) drive_hazard (Plaza) Observation: block_road(Plaza)

Abductive Model Construction Constants: Mall, City_Square block_road (City_Square) drive_hazard (City_Square) heavy_snow (City_Square) block_road (Plaza) heavy_snow (Plaza) drive_hazard (Plaza) Observation: block_road(Plaza) block_road (Mall) heavy_snow (Mall) drive_hazard (Mall)

Abductive Model Construction Constants: …, Mall, City_Square,... block_road (Plaza) heavy_snow (Plaza) drive_hazard (Plaza) Observation: block_road(Plaza) block_road (Mall) heavy_snow (Mall) drive_hazard (Mall) block_road (City_Square) drive_hazard (City_Square) heavy_snow (City_Square)

Abductive Model Construction Constants: …, Mall, City_Square,... Not a part of abductive proof trees! block_road (Plaza) heavy_snow (Plaza) drive_hazard (Plaza) Observation: block_road(Plaza) block_road (Mall) heavy_snow (Mall) drive_hazard (Mall) block_road (City_Square) drive_hazard (City_Square) heavy_snow (City_Square)

Outline Motivation Background Markov Logic for Abduction Experiments Conclusion & Future Work

Story Understanding Recognizing plans from narrative text [Charniak and Goldman 1991; Ng and Mooney 92] 25 training examples, 25 test examples KB originally constructed for the ACCEL system [Ng and Mooney 92]

Monroe and Linux [Blaylock and Allen 2005] Monroe – generated using hierarchical planner High level plan in emergency response domain 10 plans, 1000 examples [10 fold cross validation] KB derived using planning knowledge Linux – users operating in linux environment High level linux command to execute 19 plans, 457 examples [4 fold cross validation] Hand coded KB MC-SAT for inference, Voted Perceptron for learning

Models Compared ModelDescription BlaylockBlaylock & Allen’s System [Blaylock & Allen 2005] BALPBayesian Abductive Logic Programs [Raghavan & Mooney 2010] MLN (PC)Pair-wise Constraint Model [Kate & Mooney 2009] MLN (HC)Hidden Cause Model MLN (HCAM)Hidden Cause with Abductive Model Construction

Results (Monroe & Linux) MonroeLinux Blaylock BALP MLN (HCAM) Percentage Accuracy for Schema Matching

Results (Modified Monroe) 100%75%50%25% MLN (PC) MLN (HC) MLN (HCAM) BALP Percentage Accuracy for Partial Predictions. Varying Observability

Timing Results (Modified Monroe) Modified-Monroe MLN (PC) MLN (HC) MLN (HCAM) 2.27 Average Inference Time in Seconds

Outline Motivation Background Markov Logic for Abduction Experiments Conclusion & Future Work

Conclusion Plan Recognition – an abductive reasoning problem A comprehensive solution based on Markov logic theory Key contributions Reverse implications through hidden causes Abductive model construction Beats other approaches on plan recognition datasets

Future Work Experimenting with other domains/tasks Online learning in presence of partial observability Learning abductive rules from data