For years now, Hakwan Lau has suffered from an inner torment. Lau is a neuroscientist who studies the sense of awareness that all of us experience during our every waking moment. How this awareness arises from ordinary matter is an ancient mystery. Several scientific theories purport to explain it, and Lau feels that one of them, called integrated information theory (IIT), has received a disproportionate amount of media attention. He's annoyed that its proponents tout it as the dominant theory in the press.

Whether we like to admit it or not, many of us have probably questioned if a bump in the night was actually a ghost at some point or another. And if you're really unlucky, you might even believe you've see a spirit in the flesh. But what exactly makes us feel like we are in the presence of something beyond the grave? Exploding head syndrome, sleep paralysis and even mould can be the source of a chill down your spine or the inkling that someone is watching. So, brace yourselves, as MailOnline explores five possible scientific explanations behind experiences of paranormal activity.

Perception and reasoning are two representative abilities of intelligence that are integrated seamlessly during human problem-solving processes. In the area of artificial intelligence (AI), the two abilities are usually realised by machine learning and logic programming, respectively. However, the two categories of techniques were developed separately throughout most of the history of AI. In this paper, we present the abductive learning targeted at unifying the two AI paradigms in a mutually beneficial way, where the machine learning model learns to perceive primitive logic facts from data, while logical reasoning can exploit symbolic domain knowledge and correct the wrongly perceived facts for improving the machine learning models. Furthermore, we propose a novel approach to optimise the machine learning model and the logical reasoning model jointly. We demonstrate that by using abductive learning, machines can learn to recognise numbers and resolve unknown mathematical operations simultaneously from images of simple hand-written equations. Moreover, the learned models can be generalised to longer equations and adapted to different tasks, which is beyond the capability of state-ofthe-art deep learning models.

Abduction is a form of inference that seeks the best explanation for the given observation. Because it provides a reasoning process based on background knowledge, it is used in applications that need convincing explanations. In this study, we consider weighted abduction, which is one of the commonly used mathematical models for abduction. The main difficulty associated with applying weighted abduction to real problems is its computational complexity. A state-of-the-art method formulates weighted abduction as an integer linear programming (ILP) problem and solves it using efficient ILP solvers; however, it is still limited to solving problems that include at most 100 rules of background knowledge and observations.

Welcome to AI book reviews, a series of posts that explore the latest literature on artificial intelligence. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

The Transform Technology Summits start October 13th with Low-Code/No Code: Enabling Enterprise Agility. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

Welcome to AI book reviews, a series of posts that explore the latest literature on artificial intelligence. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

Welcome to AI book reviews, a series of posts that explore the latest literature on artificial intelligence. Recent advances in deep learning have rekindled interest in the imminence of machines that can think and act like humans, or artificial general intelligence. By following the path of building bigger and better neural networks, the thinking goes, we will be able to get closer and closer to creating a digital version of the human brain. But this is a myth, argues computer scientist Erik Larson, and all evidence suggests that human and machine intelligence are radically different. Larson's new book, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do, discusses how widely publicized misconceptions about intelligence and inference have led AI research down narrow paths that are limiting innovation and scientific discoveries.

Uncertain information is being taken into account in an increasing number of application fields. In the meantime, abduction has been proved a powerful tool for handling hypothetical reasoning and incomplete knowledge. Probabilistic logical models are a suitable framework to handle uncertain information, and in the last decade many probabilistic logical languages have been proposed, as well as inference and learning systems for them. In the realm of Abductive Logic Programming (ALP), a variety of proof procedures have been defined as well. In this paper, we consider a richer logic language, coping with probabilistic abduction with variables. In particular, we consider an ALP program enriched with integrity constraints `a la IFF, possibly annotated with a probability value. We first present the overall abductive language, and its semantics according to the Distribution Semantics. We then introduce a proof procedure, obtained by extending one previously presented, and prove its soundness and completeness.

Regenerating natural language explanations for science questions is a challenging task for evaluating complex multi-hop and abductive inference capabilities. In this setting, Transformers trained on human-annotated explanations achieve state-of-the-art performance when adopted as cross-encoder architectures. However, while much attention has been devoted to the quality of the constructed explanations, the problem of performing abductive inference at scale is still under-studied. As intrinsically not scalable, the cross-encoder architectural paradigm is not suitable for efficient multi-hop inference on massive facts banks. To maximise both accuracy and inference time, we propose a hybrid abductive solver that autoregressively combines a dense bi-encoder with a sparse model of explanatory power, computed leveraging explicit patterns in the explanations. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed framework can achieve performance comparable with the state-of-the-art cross-encoder while being $\approx 50$ times faster and scalable to corpora of millions of facts. Moreover, we study the impact of the hybridisation on semantic drift and science question answering without additional training, showing that it boosts the quality of the explanations and contributes to improved downstream inference performance.