We introduce a novel methodology for testing stochastic black-box systems, frequently encountered in embedded systems. Our approach enhances the established black-box checking (BBC) technique to address stochastic behavior. Traditional BBC primarily involves iteratively identifying an input that breaches the system's specifications by executing the following three phases: the learning phase to construct an automaton approximating the black box's behavior, the synthesis phase to identify a candidate counterexample from the learned automaton, and the validation phase to validate the obtained candidate counterexample and the learned automaton against the original black-box system. Our method, ProbBBC, refines the conventional BBC approach by (1) employing an active Markov Decision Process (MDP) learning method during the learning phase, (2) incorporating probabilistic model checking in the synthesis phase, and (3) applying statistical hypothesis testing in the validation phase. ProbBBC uniquely integrates these techniques rather than merely substituting each method in the traditional BBC; for instance, the statistical hypothesis testing and the MDP learning procedure exchange information regarding the black-box system's observation with one another. The experiment results suggest that ProbBBC outperforms an existing method, especially for systems with limited observation.

This paper continues the line of work on representing properties of actions in nonmonotonic formalisms that stresses the distinction between being "true" and being "caused", as in the system of causal logic introduced by McCain and Turner and in the action language C proposed by Giunchiglia and Lifschitz. The only fluents directly representable in language C+ are truth-valued fluents, which is often inconvenient. We show that both causal logic and language C can be extended to allow values from arbitrary nonempty sets. Our extension of language C, called C+, also makes it possible to describe actions in terms of their attributes, which is important from the perspective of elaboration tolerance. We describe an embedding of C+ in causal theories with multi-valued constants, relate C+ to Pednault's action language ADL, and show how multi-valued constants can be eliminated in favor of Boolean constants.

Recently Ferraris, Lee and Lifschitz proposed a new definition of stable models that does not refer to grounding, which applies to the syntax of arbitrary first-order sentences. We show its relation to the idea of loop formulas with variables by Chen, Lin, Wang and Zhang, and generalize their loop formulas to disjunctive programs and to arbitrary first-order sentences. We also extend the syntax of logic programs to allow explicit quantifiers, and define its semantics as a subclass of the new language of stable models by Ferraris et al. Such programs inherit from the general language the ability to handle nonmonotonic reasoning under the stable model semantics even in the absence of the unique name and the domain closure assumptions, while yielding more succinct loop formulas than the general language due to the restricted syntax. We also show certain syntactic conditions under which query answering for an extended program can be reduced to entailment checking in first-order logic, providing a way to apply first-order theorem provers to reasoning about non-Herbrand stable models.

By introducing the concepts of a loop and a loop formula, Lin and Zhao showed that the answer sets of a nondisjunctive logic program are exactly the models of its Clark's completion that satisfy the loop formulas of all loops. Recently, Gebser and Schaub showed that the Lin-Zhao theorem remains correct even if we restrict loop formulas to a special class of loops called ``elementary loops.'' In this paper, we simplify and generalize the notion of an elementary loop, and clarify its role. We propose the notion of an elementary set, which is almost equivalent to the notion of an elementary loop for nondisjunctive programs, but is simpler, and, unlike elementary loops, can be extended to disjunctive programs without producing unintuitive results. We show that the maximal unfounded elementary sets for the ``relevant'' part of a program are exactly the minimal sets among the nonempty unfounded sets. We also present a graph-theoretic characterization of elementary sets for nondisjunctive programs, which is simpler than the one proposed in (Gebser & Schaub 2005). Unlike the case of nondisjunctive programs, we show that the problem of deciding an elementary set is coNP-complete for disjunctive programs.

Safe first-order formulas generalize the concept of a safe rule, which plays an important role in the design of answer set solvers. We show that any safe sentence is equivalent, in a certain sense, to the result of its grounding -- to the variable-free sentence obtained from it by replacing all quantifiers with multiple conjunctions and disjunctions. It follows that a safe sentence and the result of its grounding have the same stable models, and that the stable models of a safe sentence can be characterized by a formula of a simple syntactic form.

Reasoning way to integrate sub-symbolic and symbolic can help identify perception mistakes that violate semantic computation. We demonstrate how NeurASP can constraints, which in turn can make perception more make use of a pre-trained neural network in symbolic robust. For example, a neural network for object detection computation and how it can improve the neural may return a bounding box and its classification "car," but it network's perception result by applying symbolic may not be clear whether it is a real car or a toy car. The reasoning in answer set programming. Also, distinction can be made by applying reasoning about the relations NeurASP can be used to train a neural network with the surrounding objects and using commonsense better by training with ASP rules so that a neural knowledge. Or when it is unclear whether a round object attached network not only learns from implicit correlations to the car is a wheel or a doughnut, the reasoner could from the data but also from the explicit complex conclude that it is more likely to be a wheel by applying commonsense semantic constraints expressed by the rules.

Despite numerous successes in Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL), the learned policies are not interpretable. Moreover, since DRL does not exploit symbolic relational representations, it has difficulties in coping with structural changes in its environment (such as increasing the number of objects). Relational Reinforcement Learning, on the other hand, inherits the relational representations from symbolic planning to learn reusable policies. However, it has so far been unable to scale up and exploit the power of deep neural networks. We propose Deep Explainable Relational Reinforcement Learning (DERRL), a framework that exploits the best of both -- neural and symbolic worlds. By resorting to a neuro-symbolic approach, DERRL combines relational representations and constraints from symbolic planning with deep learning to extract interpretable policies. These policies are in the form of logical rules that explain how each decision (or action) is arrived at. Through several experiments, in setups like the Countdown Game, Blocks World, Gridworld, and Traffic, we show that the policies learned by DERRL can be applied to different configurations and contexts, hence generalizing to environmental modifications.

This paper discusses and evaluates ideas of data balancing and data augmentation in the context of mathematical objects: an important topic for both the symbolic computation and satisfiability checking communities, when they are making use of machine learning techniques to optimise their tools. We consider a dataset of non-linear polynomial problems and the problem of selecting a variable ordering for cylindrical algebraic decomposition to tackle these with. By swapping the variable names in already labelled problems, we generate new problem instances that do not require any further labelling when viewing the selection as a classification problem. We find this augmentation increases the accuracy of ML models by 63% on average. We study what part of this improvement is due to the balancing of the dataset and what is achieved thanks to further increasing the size of the dataset, concluding that both have a very significant effect. We finish the paper by reflecting on how this idea could be applied in other uses of machine learning in mathematics.

Knowledge graph (KG) reasoning is an important problem for knowledge graphs. In this paper, we propose a novel and principled framework called \textbf{RulE} (stands for {Rul}e {E}mbedding) to effectively leverage logical rules to enhance KG reasoning. Unlike knowledge graph embedding (KGE) methods, RulE learns rule embeddings from existing triplets and first-order {rules} by jointly representing \textbf{entities}, \textbf{relations} and \textbf{logical rules} in a unified embedding space. Based on the learned rule embeddings, a confidence score can be calculated for each rule, reflecting its consistency with the observed triplets. This allows us to perform logical rule inference in a soft way, thus alleviating the brittleness of logic. On the other hand, RulE injects prior logical rule information into the embedding space, enriching and regularizing the entity/relation embeddings. This makes KGE alone perform better too. RulE is conceptually simple and empirically effective. We conduct extensive experiments to verify each component of RulE. Results on multiple benchmarks reveal that our model outperforms the majority of existing embedding-based and rule-based approaches.

A common feature of non-monotonic logics is that the classical notion of equivalence does not preserve the intended meaning in light of additional information. Consequently, the term strong equivalence was coined in the literature and thoroughly investigated. In the present paper, the knowledge representation formalism under consideration is claim-augmented argumentation frameworks (CAFs) which provide a formal basis to analyze conclusion-oriented problems in argumentation by adapting a claim-focused perspective. CAFs extend Dung AFs by associating a claim to each argument representing its conclusion. In this paper, we investigate both ordinary and strong equivalence in CAFs. Thereby, we take the fact into account that one might either be interested in the actual arguments or their claims only. The former point of view naturally yields an extension of strong equivalence for AFs to the claim-based setting while the latter gives rise to a novel equivalence notion which is genuine for CAFs. We tailor, examine and compare these notions and obtain a comprehensive study of this matter for CAFs. We conclude by investigating the computational complexity of naturally arising decision problems.