The goal of combining the robustness of neural networks and the expressiveness of symbolic methods has rekindled the interest in Neuro-Symbolic AI. Deep Probabilistic Programming Languages (DPPLs) have been developed for probabilistic logic programming to be carried out via the probability estimations of deep neural networks. However, recent SOTA DPPL approaches allow only for limited conditional probabilistic queries and do not offer the power of true joint probability estimation. In our work, we propose an easy integration of tractable probabilistic inference within a DPPL. To this end, we introduce SLASH, a novel DPPL that consists of Neural-Probabilistic Predicates (NPPs) and a logic program, united via answer set programming (ASP). NPPs are a novel design principle allowing for combining all deep model types and combinations thereof to be represented as a single probabilistic predicate. In this context, we introduce a novel $+/-$ notation for answering various types of probabilistic queries by adjusting the atom notations of a predicate. To scale well, we show how to prune the stochastically insignificant parts of the (ground) program, speeding up reasoning without sacrificing the predictive performance. We evaluate SLASH on a variety of different tasks, including the benchmark task of MNIST addition and Visual Question Answering (VQA).

An alternative to stratified is parallel integration. In contrast to stratified frameworks, parallel integration applies in settings Parallel neurosymbolic architectures have been in which the same task can be solved both symbolically applied effectively in NLP by distilling knowledge and sub-symbolically and the aim is to increase the accuracy from a logic theory into a deep model. However, of the end task by distilling knowledge from the logic prior art faces several limitations including component into the neural one and vice versa. Two parallel supporting restricted forms of logic theories and neurosymbolic frameworks have been proposed recently: relying on the assumption of independence between Teacher-Student (T-S) by Hu et al. (Hu et al., 2016a;b) and the logic and the deep network.

Automated reasoning with unstructured natural text is a key requirement for many potential applications of NLP and for developing robust AI systems. Recently, Language Models (LMs) have demonstrated complex reasoning capacities even without any finetuning. However, existing evaluation for automated reasoning assumes access to a consistent and coherent set of information over which models reason. When reasoning in the real-world, the available information is frequently inconsistent or contradictory, and therefore models need to be equipped with a strategy to resolve such conflicts when they arise. One widely-applicable way of resolving conflicts is to impose preferences over information sources (e.g., based on source credibility or information recency) and adopt the source with higher preference. In this paper, we formulate the problem of reasoning with contradictory information guided by preferences over sources as the classical problem of defeasible reasoning, and develop a dataset called BoardgameQA for measuring the reasoning capacity of LMs in this setting. BoardgameQA also incorporates reasoning with implicit background knowledge, to better reflect reasoning problems in downstream applications. We benchmark various LMs on BoardgameQA and the results reveal a significant gap in the reasoning capacity of state-of-the-art LMs on this problem, showing that reasoning with conflicting information does not surface out-of-the-box in LMs. While performance can be improved with finetuning, it nevertheless remains poor.

We propose an end-to-end approach for answer set programming (ASP) and linear algebraically compute stable models satisfying given constraints. The idea is to implement Lin-Zhao's theorem \cite{Lin04} together with constraints directly in vector spaces as numerical minimization of a cost function constructed from a matricized normal logic program, loop formulas in Lin-Zhao's theorem and constraints, thereby no use of symbolic ASP or SAT solvers involved in our approach. We also propose precomputation that shrinks the program size and heuristics for loop formulas to reduce computational difficulty. We empirically test our approach with programming examples including the 3-coloring and Hamiltonian cycle problems. As our approach is purely numerical and only contains vector/matrix operations, acceleration by parallel technologies such as many-cores and GPUs is expected.

This paper continues an established line of research about the relations between argumentation theory, particularly assumption-based argumentation, and different kinds of logic programs. In particular, we extend known result of Caminada, Schultz and Toni by showing that assumption-based argumentation can represent not only normal logic programs, but also disjunctive logic programs and their extensions. For this, we consider some inference rules for disjunction that the core logic of the argumentation frameworks should respect, and show the correspondence to the handling of disjunctions in the heads of the logic programs' rules.

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.

This work, shows how propositional resolution can be generalized to obtain a resolution proof system for constrained pseudo-propositional logic (CPPL), which is an extension resulted from inserting the natural numbers with few constraints symbols into the alphabet of propositional logic and adjusting the underling language accordingly. Unlike the construction of CNF formulas which are restricted to a finite set of clauses, the extended CPPL does not require the corresponding set to be finite. Although this restriction is made dispensable, this work presents a constructive proof showing that the generalized resolution for CPPL is sound and complete. As a marginal result, this implies that propositional resolution is also sound and complete for formulas with even infinite set of clauses.

As ecommerce continues growing, huge investments in ML and NLP for Information Retrieval are following. While the vector space model dominated retrieval modelling in product search - even as vectorization itself greatly changed with the advent of deep learning -, our position paper argues in a contrarian fashion that program synthesis provides significant advantages for many queries and a significant number of players in the market. We detail the industry significance of the proposed approach, sketch implementation details, and address common objections drawing from our experience building a similar system at Tooso.

In this paper, our aim is to briefly survey and articulate the logical and philosophical foundations of using (first-order) logic to represent (probabilistic) knowledge in a non-technical fashion. Our motivation is three fold. First, for machine learning researchers unaware of why the research community cares about relational representations, this article can serve as a gentle introduction. Second, for logical experts who are newcomers to the learning area, such an article can help in navigating the differences between finite vs infinite, and subjective probabilities vs random-world semantics. Finally, for researchers from statistical relational learning and neuro-symbolic AI, who are usually embedded in finite worlds with subjective probabilities, appreciating what infinite domains and random-world semantics brings to the table is of utmost theoretical import.

Fairness in machine learning is of considerable interest in recent years owing to the propensity of algorithms trained on historical data to amplify and perpetuate historical biases. In this paper, we argue for a formal reconstruction of fairness definitions, not so much to replace existing definitions but to ground their application in an epistemic setting and allow for rich environmental modelling. Consequently we look into three notions: fairness through unawareness, demographic parity and counterfactual fairness, and formalise these in the epistemic situation calculus.