Declarative programming allows the expression of properties of the desired solution(s), while the computational task is delegated to a general-purpose algorithm. The freedom from explicit control
is counter-balanced by the difficulty in working out what properties are missing or are incorrectly expressed, when the solutions do not meet expectations. This can be particularly problematic in the
case of answer set semantics, because the absence of a key constraint/rule could make the difference
between none or thousands of answer sets, rather than the intended one (or handful). The debugging task then comprises adding or deleting conditions on the right hand sides of existing rules or, more
far-reaching, adding or deleting whole rules. The contribution of this paper is to show how inductive logic programming (ILP) along with examples of (un)desirable properties of answer sets can be used
to revise the original program semi-automatically so that it satisfies the stated properties, in effect providing debugging-by-example for programs under answer set semantics.