A core tension in models of concept learning is that the model must carefully balance the tractability of inference against the expressivity of the hypothesis class. Humans, however, can efficiently learn a broad range of concepts. We introduce a model of inductive learning that seeks to be human-like in that sense. It implements a Bayesian reasoning process where a language model first proposes candidate hypotheses expressed in natural language, which are then re-weighed by a prior and a likelihood. By estimating the prior from human data, we can predict human judgments on learning problems involving numbers and sets, spanning concepts that are generative, discriminative, propositional, and higher-order.

Epistemic Logic Programs (ELPs), extend Answer Set Programming (ASP) with epistemic operators. The semantics of such programs is provided in terms of world views, which are sets of belief sets, i.e., syntactically, sets of sets of atoms. Different semantic approaches propose different characterizations of world views. Recent work has introduced semantic properties that should be met by any semantics for ELPs, like the Epistemic Splitting Property, that, if satisfied, allows to modularly compute world views in a bottom-up fashion, analogously to ``traditional'' ASP. We analyze the possibility of changing the perspective, shifting from a bottom-up to a top-down approach to splitting. We propose a basic top-down approach, which we prove to be equivalent to the bottom-up one. We then propose an extended approach, where our new definition: (i) is provably applicable to many of the existing semantics; (ii) operates similarly to ``traditional'' ASP; (iii) provably coincides under any semantics with the bottom-up notion of splitting at least on the class of Epistemically Stratified Programs (which are, intuitively, those where the use of epistemic operators is stratified); (iv) better adheres to common ASP programming methodology.

Current methods of imitation learning (IL), primarily based on deep neural networks, offer efficient means for obtaining driving policies from real-world data but suffer from significant limitations in interpretability and generalizability. These shortcomings are particularly concerning in safety-critical applications like autonomous driving. In this paper, we address these limitations by introducing Symbolic Imitation Learning (SIL), a groundbreaking method that employs Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) to learn driving policies which are transparent, explainable and generalisable from available datasets. Utilizing the real-world highD dataset, we subject our method to a rigorous comparative analysis against prevailing neural-network-based IL methods. Our results demonstrate that SIL not only enhances the interpretability of driving policies but also significantly improves their applicability across varied driving situations. Hence, this work offers a novel pathway to more reliable and safer autonomous driving systems, underscoring the potential of integrating ILP into the domain of IL.

Automated reasoning refers to a set of tools and techniques for automatically proving or disproving formulas in mathematical logic.35 It has many applications in computer science--for example, questions about the existence of bugs or security vulnerabilities in hardware or software systems can often be phrased as logical formulas, or verification conditions, whose validity can then be proved or disproved using automated reasoning techniques, a process known as formal verification.15,26 When successful, formal verification can guarantee freedom from certain kinds of design errors, an outcome that is otherwise extremely difficult to achieve. Driven by such potential benefits, the past couple of decades have seen a dramatic improvement in the performance and capabilities of automated reasoning tools, with a corresponding explosion of use cases, including formal verification, automated test-case generation, program analysis, program synthesis, and many more.5,37,38 These applications rely crucially on automated reasoning tools producing correct results.

Assurance cases can be used to argue for the safety of products in safety engineering. In safety-critical areas, the construction of assurance cases is indispensable. Trustworthiness Derivation Trees (TDTs) enhance assurance cases by incorporating formal methods, rendering it possible for automatic reasoning about assurance cases. We present Trustworthiness Derivation Tree Analyzer (Trusta), a desktop application designed to automatically construct and verify TDTs. The tool has a built-in Prolog interpreter in its backend, and is supported by the constraint solvers Z3 and MONA. Therefore, it can solve constraints about logical formulas involving arithmetic, sets, Horn clauses etc. Trusta also utilizes large language models to make the creation and evaluation of assurance cases more convenient. It allows for interactive human examination and modification. We evaluated top language models like ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and PaLM 2 for generating assurance cases. Our tests showed a 50%-80% similarity between machine-generated and human-created cases. In addition, Trusta can extract formal constraints from text in natural languages, facilitating an easier interpretation and validation process. This extraction is subject to human review and correction, blending the best of automated efficiency with human insight. To our knowledge, this marks the first integration of large language models in automatic creating and reasoning about assurance cases, bringing a novel approach to a traditional challenge. Through several industrial case studies, Trusta has proven to quickly find some subtle issues that are typically missed in manual inspection, demonstrating its practical value in enhancing the assurance case development process.

We introduce a framework for reasoning about the security of computer systems using modal logic. This framework is sufficiently expressive to capture a variety of known security properties, while also being intuitive and independent of syntactic details and enforcement mechanisms. We show how to use our formalism to represent various progress- and termination-(in)sensitive variants of confidentiality, integrity, robust declassification and transparent endorsement, and prove equivalence to standard definitions. The intuitive nature and closeness to semantic reality of our approach allows us to make explicit several hidden assumptions of these definitions, and identify potential issues and subtleties with them, while also holding the promise of formulating cleaner versions and future extension to entirely novel properties.

Model-based systems engineering (MBSE) is a methodology that exploits system representation during the entire system life-cycle. The use of formal models has gained momentum in robotics engineering over the past few years. Models play a crucial role in robot design; they serve as the basis for achieving holistic properties, such as functional reliability or adaptive resilience, and facilitate the automated production of modules. We propose the use of formal conceptualizations beyond the engineering phase, providing accurate models that can be leveraged at runtime. This paper explores the use of Category Theory, a mathematical framework for describing abstractions, as a formal language to produce such robot models. To showcase its practical application, we present a concrete example based on the Marathon 2 experiment. Here, we illustrate the potential of formalizing systems -- including their recovery mechanisms -- which allows engineers to design more trustworthy autonomous robots. This, in turn, enhances their dependability and performance.

We propose a formal language for describing and explaining statistical causality. Concretely, we define Statistical Causality Language (StaCL) for expressing causal effects and specifying the requirements for causal inference. StaCL incorporates modal operators for interventions to express causal properties between probability distributions in different possible worlds in a Kripke model. We formalize axioms for probability distributions, interventions, and causal predicates using StaCL formulas. These axioms are expressive enough to derive the rules of Pearl's do-calculus. Finally, we demonstrate by examples that StaCL can be used to specify and explain the correctness of statistical causal inference.

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to address the human need for safe and reliable AI systems. However, numerous surveys emphasize the absence of a sound mathematical formalization of key XAI notions -- remarkably including the term "explanation" which still lacks a precise definition. To bridge this gap, this paper presents the first mathematically rigorous definitions of key XAI notions and processes, using the well-funded formalism of Category theory. We show that our categorical framework allows to: (i) model existing learning schemes and architectures, (ii) formally define the term "explanation", (iii) establish a theoretical basis for XAI taxonomies, and (iv) analyze commonly overlooked aspects of explaining methods. As a consequence, our categorical framework promotes the ethical and secure deployment of AI technologies as it represents a significant step towards a sound theoretical foundation of explainable AI.

This work describes a new version of a previously published Python package -- gym-saturation: a collection of OpenAI Gym environments for guiding saturation-style provers based on the given clause algorithm with reinforcement learning. We contribute usage examples with two different provers: Vampire and iProver. We also have decoupled the proof state representation from reinforcement learning per se and provided examples of using a known ast2vec Python code embedding model as a first-order logic representation. In addition, we demonstrate how environment wrappers can transform a prover into a problem similar to a multi-armed bandit. We applied two reinforcement learning algorithms (Thompson sampling and Proximal policy optimisation) implemented in Ray RLlib to show the ease of experimentation with the new release of our package.