We view voting rules as classifiers that assign a winner (a class) to a profile of voters' preferences (an instance). We propose to apply techniques from formal explainability, most notably abductive and contrastive explanations, to identify minimal subsets of a preference profile that either imply the current winner or explain why a different candidate was not elected. Formal explanations turn out to have strong connections with classical problems studied in computational social choice such as bribery, possible and necessary winner identification, and preference learning. We design algorithms for computing abductive and contrastive explanations for scoring rules. For the Borda rule, we find a lower bound on the size of the smallest abductive explanations, and we conduct simulations to identify correlations between properties of preference profiles and the size of their smallest abductive explanations.

We explore the problem of explaining observations starting from a classically inconsistent theory by adopting a paraconsistent framework. We consider two expansions of the well-known Belnap--Dunn paraconsistent four-valued logic $\mathsf{BD}$: $\mathsf{BD}_\circ$ introduces formulas of the form $\circ\phi$ (the information on $\phi$ is reliable), while $\mathsf{BD}_\triangle$ augments the language with $\triangle\phi$'s (there is information that $\phi$ is true). We define and motivate the notions of abduction problems and explanations in $\mathsf{BD}_\circ$ and $\mathsf{BD}_\triangle$ and show that they are not reducible to one another. We analyse the complexity of standard abductive reasoning tasks (solution recognition, solution existence, and relevance / necessity of hypotheses) in both logics. Finally, we show how to reduce abduction in $\mathsf{BD}_\circ$ and $\mathsf{BD}_\triangle$ to abduction in classical propositional logic, thereby enabling the reuse of existing abductive reasoning procedures.

Automated reasoning is a key technology in the young but rapidly growing field of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). Explanability helps build trust in artificial intelligence systems beyond their mere predictive accuracy and robustness. In this paper, we propose a cycle of scientific discovery that combines machine learning with automated reasoning for the generation and the selection of explanations. We present a taxonomy of explanation selection problems that draws on insights from sociology and cognitive science. These selection criteria subsume existing notions and extend them with new properties.

The ability to generate artificial human movement patterns while meeting location and time constraints is an important problem in the security community, particularly as it enables the study of the analog problem of detecting such patterns while maintaining privacy. We frame this problem as an instance of abduction guided by a novel parsimony function represented as an aggregate truth value over an annotated logic program. This approach has the added benefit of affording explainability to an analyst user. By showing that any subset of such a program can provide a lower bound on this parsimony requirement, we are able to abduce movement trajectories efficiently through an informed (i.e., A*) search. We describe how our implementation was enhanced with the application of multiple techniques in order to be scaled and integrated with a cloud-based software stack that included bottom-up rule learning, geolocated knowledge graph retrieval/management, and interfaces with government systems for independently conducted government-run tests for which we provide results. We also report on our own experiments showing that we not only provide exact results but also scale to very large scenarios and provide realistic agent trajectories that can go undetected by machine learning anomaly detectors.

We introduce the Abductive Rule Learner with Context-awareness (ARLC), a model that solves abstract reasoning tasks based on Learn-VRF. ARLC features a novel and more broadly applicable training objective for abductive reasoning, resulting in better interpretability and higher accuracy when solving Raven's progressive matrices (RPM). ARLC allows both programming domain knowledge and learning the rules underlying a data distribution. We evaluate ARLC on the I-RAVEN dataset, showcasing state-of-the-art accuracy across both in-distribution and out-of-distribution (unseen attribute-rule pairs) tests. ARLC surpasses neuro-symbolic and connectionist baselines, including large language models, despite having orders of magnitude fewer parameters. We show ARLC's robustness to post-programming training by incrementally learning from examples on top of programmed knowledge, which only improves its performance and does not result in catastrophic forgetting of the programmed solution. We validate ARLC's seamless transfer learning from a 2x2 RPM constellation to unseen constellations. Our code is available at https://github.com/IBM/abductive-rule-learner-with-context-awareness.

The process of developing theories and models and testing them with experiments is fundamental to the scientific method. Automating the entire scientific method then requires not only automation of the induction of theories from data, but also experimentation from design to implementation. This is the idea behind a robot scientist -- a coupled system of AI and laboratory robotics that has agency to test hypotheses with real-world experiments. In this chapter we explore some of the fundamentals of robot scientists in the philosophy of science. We also map the activities of a robot scientist to machine learning paradigms, and argue that the scientific method shares an analogy with active learning. We demonstrate these concepts using examples from previous robot scientists, and also from Genesis: a next generation robot scientist designed for research in systems biology, comprising a micro-fluidic system with 1000 computer-controlled micro-bioreactors and interpretable models based in controlled vocabularies and logic.

Explanatory inference is the creation and evaluation of hypotheses that provide explanations, and is sometimes known as abduction or abductive inference. Generative AI is a new set of artificial intelligence models based on novel algorithms for generating text, images, and sounds. This paper proposes a set of benchmarks for assessing the ability of AI programs to perform explanatory inference, and uses them to determine the extent to which ChatGPT, a leading generative AI model, is capable of making explanatory inferences. Tests on the benchmarks reveal that ChatGPT performs creative and evaluative inferences in many domains, although it is limited to verbal and visual modalities. Claims that ChatGPT and similar models are incapable of explanation, understanding, causal reasoning, meaning, and creativity are rebutted.

Abductive reasoning is the process of making educated guesses to provide explanations for observations. Although many applications require the use of knowledge for explanations, the utilization of abductive reasoning in conjunction with structured knowledge, such as a knowledge graph, remains largely unexplored. To fill this gap, this paper introduces the task of complex logical hypothesis generation, as an initial step towards abductive logical reasoning with KG. In this task, we aim to generate a complex logical hypothesis so that it can explain a set of observations. We find that the supervised trained generative model can generate logical hypotheses that are structurally closer to the reference hypothesis. However, when generalized to unseen observations, this training objective does not guarantee better hypothesis generation. To address this, we introduce the Reinforcement Learning from Knowledge Graph (RLF-KG) method, which minimizes differences between observations and conclusions drawn from generated hypotheses according to the KG. Experiments show that, with RLF-KG's assistance, the generated hypotheses provide better explanations, and achieve state-of-the-art results on three widely used KGs.

Reasoning, a crucial ability for complex problem-solving, plays a pivotal role in various real-world settings such as negotiation, medical diagnosis, and criminal investigation. It serves as a fundamental methodology in the field of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). With the ongoing development of foundation models, e.g., Large Language Models (LLMs), there is a growing interest in exploring their abilities in reasoning tasks. In this paper, we introduce seminal foundation models proposed or adaptable for reasoning, highlighting the latest advancements in various reasoning tasks, methods, and benchmarks. We then delve into the potential future directions behind the emergence of reasoning abilities within foundation models. We also discuss the relevance of multimodal learning, autonomous agents, and super alignment in the context of reasoning. By discussing these future research directions, we hope to inspire researchers in their exploration of this field, stimulate further advancements in reasoning with foundation models, and contribute to the development of AGI.

Language technologies that accurately model the dynamics of events must perform commonsense reasoning. Existing work evaluating commonsense reasoning focuses on making inferences about common, everyday situations. To instead investigate the ability to model unusual, unexpected, and unlikely situations, we explore the task of uncommonsense abductive reasoning. Given a piece of context with an unexpected outcome, this task requires reasoning abductively to generate a natural language explanation that makes the unexpected outcome more likely in the context. To this end, we curate and release a new English language corpus called UNcommonsense. We characterize the differences between the performance of human explainers and the best performing large language models, finding that model-enhanced human-written explanations achieve the highest quality by trading off between specificity and diversity. Finally, we experiment with several online imitation learning algorithms to train open and accessible language models on this task. When compared with the vanilla supervised fine-tuning approach, these methods consistently reduce lose rates on both common and uncommonsense abductive reasoning judged by human evaluators.