Timothy Duggan

Pierrick Lorang, Johannes Huemer, Timothy Duggan et al.

Enabling robots to learn long-horizon manipulation tasks from a handful of demonstrations remains a central challenge in robotics. Existing neuro-symbolic approaches often rely on hand-crafted symbolic abstractions, semantically labeled trajectories or large demonstration datasets, limiting their scalability and real-world applicability. We present a scalable neuro-symbolic framework that autonomously constructs symbolic planning domains and data-efficient control policies from as few as one to thirty unannotated skill demonstrations, without requiring manual domain engineering. Our method segments demonstrations into skills and employs a Vision-Language Model (VLM) to classify skills and identify equivalent high-level states, enabling automatic construction of a state-transition graph. This graph is processed by an Answer Set Programming solver to synthesize a PDDL planning domain, which an oracle function exploits to isolate the minimal, task-relevant and target relative observation and action spaces for each skill policy. Policies are learned at the control reference level rather than at the raw actuator signal level, yielding a smoother and less noisy learning target. Known controllers can be leveraged for real-world data augmentation by projecting a single demonstration onto other objects in the scene, simultaneously enriching the graph construction process and the dataset for imitation learning. We validate our framework primarily on a real industrial forklift across statistically rigorous manipulation trials, and demonstrate cross-platform generality on a Kinova Gen3 robotic arm across two standard benchmarks. Our results show that grounding control learning, VLM-driven abstraction, and automated planning synthesis into a unified pipeline constitutes a practical path toward scalable, data-efficient, expert-free and interpretable neuro-symbolic robotics.

Katharine Kowalyshyn, Timothy Duggan, Daniel Little et al.

How do LLMs learn in-context? Is it by pattern-matching recent tokens, or by inferring latent structure? We probe this question using a toy graph random-walk across two competing graph structures. This task's answer is, in principle, decidable: either the model tracks global topology, or it copies local transitions. We present two lines of evidence that neither account alone is sufficient. First, reconstructing the internal representation structure via PCA reveals that at intermediate mixture ratios, both graph topologies are encoded in orthogonal principal subspaces simultaneously. This pattern is difficult to reconcile with purely local transition copying. Second, residual-stream activation patching and graph-difference steering causally intervene on this graph-family signal: late-layer patching almost fully transfers the clean graph preference, while linear steering moves predictions in the intended direction and fails under norm-matched and label-shuffled controls. Taken together, our findings are most consistent with a dual-mechanism account in which genuine structure inference and induction circuits operate in parallel.