"I think the best hope for human-level AI is logical AI, based on the formalizing of commonsense knowledge and reasoning in mathematical logic. Formalizing common sense requires extensions to mathematical logic including nonmonotonic reasoning and extensive reification, e.g., of concepts and also contexts. The reifications require appropriate reflection schemas."
– from The Future of AI—A Manifesto by John McCarthy. AI Magazine 26(4), (2005).
Computational philosophy is the use of mechanized computational techniques to unearth philosophical insights that are either difficult or impossible to find using traditional philosophical methods. Computational metaphysics is computational philosophy with a focus on metaphysics. In this paper, we (a) develop results in modal metaphysics whose discovery was computer assisted, and (b) conclude that these results work not only to the obvious benefit of philosophy but also, less obviously, to the benefit of computer science, since the new computational techniques that led to these results may be more broadly applicable within computer science. The paper includes a description of our background methodology and how it evolved, and a discussion of our new results.
While in recent years machine learning (ML) based approaches have been the popular approach in developing end-to-end question answering systems, such systems often struggle when additional knowledge is needed to correctly answer the questions. Proposed alternatives involve translating the question and the natural language text to a logical representation and then use logical reasoning. However, this alternative falters when the size of the text gets bigger. To address this we propose an approach that does logical reasoning over premises written in natural language text. The proposed method uses recent features of Answer Set Programming (ASP) to call external NLP modules (which may be based on ML) which perform simple textual entailment. To test our approach we develop a corpus based on the life cycle questions and showed that Our system achieves up to $18\%$ performance gain when compared to standard MCQ solvers.
Recent formal approaches towards causality have made the concept ready for incorporation into the technical world. However, causality reasoning is computationally hard; and no general algorithmic approach exists that efficiently infers the causes for effects. Thus, checking causality in the context of complex, multi-agent, and distributed socio-technical systems is a significant challenge. Therefore, we conceptualize an intelligent and novel algorithmic approach towards checking causality in acyclic causal models with binary variables, utilizing the optimization power in the solvers of the Boolean Satisfiability Problem (SAT). We present two SAT encodings, and an empirical evaluation of their efficiency and scalability. We show that causality is computed efficiently in less than 5 seconds for models that consist of more than 4000 variables.
In this paper, we consider the problem of learning a (first-order) theorem prover where we use a representation of beliefs in mathematical claims instead of a proof system to search for proofs. The inspiration for doing so comes from the practices of human mathematicians where a proof system is typically used after the fact to justify a sequence of intuitive steps obtained by "plausible reasoning" rather than to discover them. Towards this end, we introduce a probabilistic representation of beliefs in first-order statements based on first-order distributive normal forms (dnfs) devised by the philosopher Jaakko Hintikka. Notably, the representation supports Bayesian update and does not enforce that logically equivalent statements are assigned the same probability---otherwise, we would end up in a circular situation where we require a prover in order to assign beliefs. We then examine (1) conjecturing as (statistical) model selection and (2) an alternating-turn proving game amenable (in principle) to self-play training to learn a prover that is both complete in the limit and sound provided that players maintain "reasonable" beliefs. Dnfs have super-exponential space requirements so the ideas in this paper should be taken as conducting a thought experiment on "learning to prove". As a step towards making the ideas practical, we will comment on how abstractions can be used to control the space requirements at the cost of completeness.
Over the last decades, a class of important mathematical results have required an ever increasing amount of human effort to carry out. For some, the help of computers is now indispensable. We analyze the implications of this trend towards "big mathematics", its relation to human cognition, and how machine support for big math can be organized. The central contribution of this position paper is an information model for "doing mathematics", which posits that humans very efficiently integrate four aspects: inference, computation, tabulation, and narration around a well-organized core of mathematical knowledge. The challenge for mathematical software systems is that these four aspects need to be integrated as well. We briefly survey the state of the art.
Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a prominent knowledge representation language with roots in logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning. Biennial ASP competitions are organized in order to furnish challenging benchmark collections and assess the advancement of the state of the art in ASP solving. In this paper, we report on the design and results of the Seventh ASP Competition, jointly organized by the University of Calabria (Italy), the University of Genova (Italy), and the University of Potsdam (Germany), in affiliation with the 14th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 2017). (Under consideration for acceptance in TPLP).
Children learn though play. We introduce the analogous idea of learning programs through play. In this approach, a program induction system (the learner) is given a set of tasks and initial background knowledge. Before solving the tasks, the learner enters an unsupervised playing stage where it creates its own tasks to solve, tries to solve them, and saves any solutions (programs) to the background knowledge. After the playing stage is finished, the learner enters the supervised building stage where it tries to solve the user-supplied tasks and can reuse solutions learnt whilst playing. The idea is that playing allows the learner to discover reusable general programs on its own which can then help solve the user-supplied tasks. We claim that playing can improve learning performance. We show that playing can reduce the textual complexity of target concepts which in turn reduces the sample complexity of a learner. We implement our idea in Playgol, a new inductive logic programming system. We experimentally test our claim on two domains: robot planning and real-world string transformations. Our experimental results suggest that playing can substantially improve learning performance. We think that the idea of playing (or, more verbosely, unsupervised bootstrapping for supervised program induction) is an important contribution to the problem of developing program induction approaches that self-discover BK.
We extend description logics (DLs) with non-monotonic reasoning features. We start by investigating a notion of defeasible subsumption in the spirit of defeasible conditionals as studied by Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor in the propositional case. In particular, we consider a natural and intuitive semantics for defeasible subsumption, and investigate KLM-style syntactic properties for both preferential and rational subsumption. Our contribution includes two representation results linking our semantic constructions to the set of preferential and rational properties considered. Besides showing that our semantics is appropriate, these results pave the way for more effective decision procedures for defeasible reasoning in DLs. Indeed, we also analyse the problem of non-monotonic reasoning in DLs at the level of entailment and present an algorithm for the computation of rational closure of a defeasible ontology. Importantly, our algorithm relies completely on classical entailment and shows that the computational complexity of reasoning over defeasible ontologies is no worse than that of reasoning in the underlying classical DL ALC.
We present an environment, benchmark, and deep learning driven automated theorem prover for higher-order logic. Higher-order interactive theorem provers enable the formalization of arbitrary mathematical theories and thereby present an interesting, open-ended challenge for deep learning. We provide an open-source framework based on the HOL Light theorem prover that can be used as a reinforcement learning environment. HOL Light comes with a broad coverage of basic mathematical theorems on calculus and the formal proof of the Kepler conjecture, from which we derive a challenging benchmark for automated reasoning. We also present a deep reinforcement learning driven automated theorem prover, DeepHOL, with strong initial results on this benchmark.
We describe a very large improvement of existing hammer-style proof automation over large ITP libraries by combining learning and theorem proving. In particular, we have integrated state-of-the-art machine learners into the E automated theorem prover, and developed methods that allow learning and efficient internal guidance of E over the whole Mizar library. The resulting trained system improves the real-time performance of E on the Mizar library by 70% in a single-strategy setting.