skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 5:00 PM ET until 11:00 PM ET on Friday, June 21 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: Machine learning and logic: a new frontier in artificial intelligence
Machine learning and logical reasoning have been the two foundational pillars of Artificial Intelligence (AI) since its inception, and yet, until recently the interactions between these two fields have been relatively limited. Despite their individual success and largely inde- pendent development, there are new problems on the horizon that seem solvable only via a combination of ideas from these two fields of AI. These problems can be broadly char- acterized as follows: how can learning be used to make logical reasoning and synthesis/ verification engines more efficient and powerful, and in the reverse direction, how can we use reasoning to improve the accuracy, generalizability, and trustworthiness of learning. In this perspective paper, we address the above-mentioned questions with an emphasis on certain paradigmatic trends at the intersection of learning and reasoning. Our intent here is not to be a comprehensive survey of all the ways in which learning and reasoning have been combined in the past. Rather we focus on certain recent paradigms where corrective feedback loops between learning and reasoning seem to play a particularly important role. Specifically, we observe the following three trends: first, the use of learning techniques (especially, reinforcement learning) in sequencing, selecting, and initializing proof rules in solvers/provers; second, combinations of inductive learning and deductive reasoning in the context of program synthesis and verification; and third, the use of solver layers in providing corrective feedback to machine learning models in order to help improve their accuracy, generalizability, and robustness with respect to partial specifications or domain knowledge. We believe that these paradigms are likely to have significant and dramatic impact on AI and its applications for a long time to come  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1804648
NSF-PAR ID:
10471546
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Formal Methods in System Design (
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Formal Methods in System Design
Volume:
60
Issue:
3
ISSN:
0925-9856
Page Range / eLocation ID:
426 to 451
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract

    Knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR) systems describe and reason with complex concepts and relations in the form of facts and rules. Unfortunately, wide deployment of KRR systems runs into the problem that domain experts have great difficulty constructing correct logical representations of their domain knowledge. Knowledge engineers can help with this construction process, but there is a deficit of such specialists. The earlier Knowledge Authoring Logic Machine (KALM) based on Controlled Natural Language (CNL) was shown to have very high accuracy for authoring facts and questions. More recently, KALMFL, a successor of KALM, replaced CNL withfactualEnglish, which is much less restrictive and requires very little training from users. However, KALMFLhas limitations in representing certain types of knowledge, such as authoring rules for multi-step reasoning or understanding actions with timestamps. To address these limitations, we propose KALMRAto enable authoring of rules and actions. Our evaluation using the UTI guidelines benchmark shows that KALMRAachieves a high level of correctness (100%) on rule authoring. When used for authoring and reasoning with actions, KALMRAachieves more than 99.3% correctness on the bAbI benchmark, demonstrating its effectiveness in more sophisticated KRR jobs. Finally, we illustrate the logical reasoning capabilities of KALMRAby drawing attention to the problems faced by the recently made famous AI, ChatGPT.

     
    more » « less
  2. We present Scallop, a language which combines the benefits of deep learning and logical reasoning. Scallop enables users to write a wide range of neurosymbolic applications and train them in a data- and compute-efficient manner. It achieves these goals through three key features: 1) a flexible symbolic representation that is based on the relational data model; 2) a declarative logic programming language that is based on Datalog and supports recursion, aggregation, and negation; and 3) a framework for automatic and efficient differentiable reasoning that is based on the theory of provenance semirings. We evaluate Scallop on a suite of eight neurosymbolic applications from the literature. Our evaluation demonstrates that Scallop is capable of expressing algorithmic reasoning in diverse and challenging AI tasks, provides a succinct interface for machine learning programmers to integrate logical domain knowledge, and yields solutions that are comparable or superior to state-of-the-art models in terms of accuracy. Furthermore, Scallop's solutions outperform these models in aspects such as runtime and data efficiency, interpretability, and generalizability.

     
    more » « less
  3. In this tutorial, we present our recent work on building trusted, resilient and interpretable AI models by combining symbolic methods developed for automated reasoning with connectionist learning methods that use deep neural networks. The increasing adoption of artificial intelligence and machine learning in systems, including safety-critical systems, has created a pressing need for developing scalable techniques that can be used to establish trust over their safe behavior, resilience to adversarial attacks, and interpretability to enable human audits. This tutorial is comprised of three components: review of techniques for verification of neural networks, methods for using geometric invariants to defend against adversarial attacks, and techniques for extracting logical symbolic rules by reverse engineering machine learning models. These techniques form the core of TRINITY: Trusted, Resilient and Interpretable AI framework being developed at SRI. In this tutorial, we identify the key challenges in building the TRINITY framework, and report recent results on each of these three fronts. 
    more » « less
  4. Incorporating symbolic reasoning into machine learning algorithms is a promising approach to improve performance on learning tasks that re- quire logical reasoning. We study the problem of generating a programmatic variant of referring expressions that we call referring relational pro- grams. In particular, given a symbolic representation of an image and a target object in that image, the goal is to generate a relational program that uniquely identifies the target object in terms of its attributes and its relations to other objects in the image. We propose a neurosymbolic program synthesis algorithm that combines a policy neural network with enumerative search to generate such relational programs. The policy neural net- work employs a program interpreter that provides immediate feedback on the consequences of the decisions made by the policy, and also takes into account the uncertainty in the symbolic representation of the image. We evaluate our algorithm on challenging benchmarks based on the CLEVR dataset, and demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms several baselines. 
    more » « less
  5. Obeid, I. (Ed.)
    The Neural Engineering Data Consortium (NEDC) is developing the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus (TUDP), an open source database of high-resolution images from scanned pathology samples [1], as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Major Research Instrumentation grant titled “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning” [2]. The long-term goal of this project is to release one million images. We have currently scanned over 100,000 images and are in the process of annotating breast tissue data for our first official corpus release, v1.0.0. This release contains 3,505 annotated images of breast tissue including 74 patients with cancerous diagnoses (out of a total of 296 patients). In this poster, we will present an analysis of this corpus and discuss the challenges we have faced in efficiently producing high quality annotations of breast tissue. It is well known that state of the art algorithms in machine learning require vast amounts of data. Fields such as speech recognition [3], image recognition [4] and text processing [5] are able to deliver impressive performance with complex deep learning models because they have developed large corpora to support training of extremely high-dimensional models (e.g., billions of parameters). Other fields that do not have access to such data resources must rely on techniques in which existing models can be adapted to new datasets [6]. A preliminary version of this breast corpus release was tested in a pilot study using a baseline machine learning system, ResNet18 [7], that leverages several open-source Python tools. The pilot corpus was divided into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Portions of these slides were manually annotated [1] using the nine labels in Table 1 [8] to identify five to ten examples of pathological features on each slide. Not every pathological feature is annotated, meaning excluded areas can include focuses particular to these labels that are not used for training. A summary of the number of patches within each label is given in Table 2. To maintain a balanced training set, 1,000 patches of each label were used to train the machine learning model. Throughout all sets, only annotated patches were involved in model development. The performance of this model in identifying all the patches in the evaluation set can be seen in the confusion matrix of classification accuracy in Table 3. The highest performing labels were background, 97% correct identification, and artifact, 76% correct identification. A correlation exists between labels with more than 6,000 development patches and accurate performance on the evaluation set. Additionally, these results indicated a need to further refine the annotation of invasive ductal carcinoma (“indc”), inflammation (“infl”), nonneoplastic features (“nneo”), normal (“norm”) and suspicious (“susp”). This pilot experiment motivated changes to the corpus that will be discussed in detail in this poster presentation. To increase the accuracy of the machine learning model, we modified how we addressed underperforming labels. One common source of error arose with how non-background labels were converted into patches. Large areas of background within other labels were isolated within a patch resulting in connective tissue misrepresenting a non-background label. In response, the annotation overlay margins were revised to exclude benign connective tissue in non-background labels. Corresponding patient reports and supporting immunohistochemical stains further guided annotation reviews. The microscopic diagnoses given by the primary pathologist in these reports detail the pathological findings within each tissue site, but not within each specific slide. The microscopic diagnoses informed revisions specifically targeting annotated regions classified as cancerous, ensuring that the labels “indc” and “dcis” were used only in situations where a micropathologist diagnosed it as such. Further differentiation of cancerous and precancerous labels, as well as the location of their focus on a slide, could be accomplished with supplemental immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides. When distinguishing whether a focus is a nonneoplastic feature versus a cancerous growth, pathologists employ antigen targeting stains to the tissue in question to confirm the diagnosis. For example, a nonneoplastic feature of usual ductal hyperplasia will display diffuse staining for cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and no diffuse staining for estrogen receptor (ER), while a cancerous growth of ductal carcinoma in situ will have negative or focally positive staining for CK5 and diffuse staining for ER [9]. Many tissue samples contain cancerous and non-cancerous features with morphological overlaps that cause variability between annotators. The informative fields IHC slides provide could play an integral role in machine model pathology diagnostics. Following the revisions made on all the annotations, a second experiment was run using ResNet18. Compared to the pilot study, an increase of model prediction accuracy was seen for the labels indc, infl, nneo, norm, and null. This increase is correlated with an increase in annotated area and annotation accuracy. Model performance in identifying the suspicious label decreased by 25% due to the decrease of 57% in the total annotated area described by this label. A summary of the model performance is given in Table 4, which shows the new prediction accuracy and the absolute change in error rate compared to Table 3. The breast tissue subset we are developing includes 3,505 annotated breast pathology slides from 296 patients. The average size of a scanned SVS file is 363 MB. The annotations are stored in an XML format. A CSV version of the annotation file is also available which provides a flat, or simple, annotation that is easy for machine learning researchers to access and interface to their systems. Each patient is identified by an anonymized medical reference number. Within each patient’s directory, one or more sessions are identified, also anonymized to the first of the month in which the sample was taken. These sessions are broken into groupings of tissue taken on that date (in this case, breast tissue). A deidentified patient report stored as a flat text file is also available. Within these slides there are a total of 16,971 total annotated regions with an average of 4.84 annotations per slide. Among those annotations, 8,035 are non-cancerous (normal, background, null, and artifact,) 6,222 are carcinogenic signs (inflammation, nonneoplastic and suspicious,) and 2,714 are cancerous labels (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ.) The individual patients are split up into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Of the 74 cancerous patients, 20 were allotted for both the development and evaluation sets, while the remain 34 were allotted for train. The remaining 222 patients were split up to preserve the overall distribution of labels within the corpus. This was done in hope of creating control sets for comparable studies. Overall, the development and evaluation sets each have 80 patients, while the training set has 136 patients. In a related component of this project, slides from the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Biosample Repository (https://www.foxchase.org/research/facilities/genetic-research-facilities/biosample-repository -facility) are being digitized in addition to slides provided by Temple University Hospital. This data includes 18 different types of tissue including approximately 38.5% urinary tissue and 16.5% gynecological tissue. These slides and the metadata provided with them are already anonymized and include diagnoses in a spreadsheet with sample and patient ID. We plan to release over 13,000 unannotated slides from the FCCC Corpus simultaneously with v1.0.0 of TUDP. Details of this release will also be discussed in this poster. Few digitally annotated databases of pathology samples like TUDP exist due to the extensive data collection and processing required. The breast corpus subset should be released by November 2021. By December 2021 we should also release the unannotated FCCC data. We are currently annotating urinary tract data as well. We expect to release about 5,600 processed TUH slides in this subset. We have an additional 53,000 unprocessed TUH slides digitized. Corpora of this size will stimulate the development of a new generation of deep learning technology. In clinical settings where resources are limited, an assistive diagnoses model could support pathologists’ workload and even help prioritize suspected cancerous cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants nos. CNS-1726188 and 1925494. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES [1] N. Shawki et al., “The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York City, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 67 104. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030368432. [2] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning.” Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Division of Computer and Network Systems, Award No. 1726188, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021. https://www. isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_dpath/. [3] A. Gulati et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 2020, pp. 5036-5040. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2020-3015. [4] C.-J. Wu et al., “Machine Learning at Facebook: Understanding Inference at the Edge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2019, pp. 331–344. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8675201. [5] I. Caswell and B. Liang, “Recent Advances in Google Translate,” Google AI Blog: The latest from Google Research, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2021]. [6] V. Khalkhali, N. Shawki, V. Shah, M. Golmohammadi, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Low Latency Real-Time Seizure Detection Using Transfer Deep Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2021, pp. 1 7. https://www.isip. piconepress.com/publications/conference_proceedings/2021/ieee_spmb/eeg_transfer_learning/. [7] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/nsf/mri_dpath/. [8] I. Hunt, S. Husain, J. Simons, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Recent Advances in the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2019, pp. 1–4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9037859. [9] A. P. Martinez, C. Cohen, K. Z. Hanley, and X. (Bill) Li, “Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ,” Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., vol. 140, no. 7, pp. 686–689, Apr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2015-0238-OA. 
    more » « less