We propose a novel approach to logic-based learning which generates assumption-based argumentation (ABA) frameworks from positive and negative examples, using a given background knowledge. These ABA frameworks can be mapped onto logic programs with negation as failure that may be non-stratified. Whereas existing argumentation-based methods learn exceptions to general rules by interpreting the exceptions as rebuttal attacks, our approach interprets them as undercutting attacks. Our learning technique is based on the use of transformation rules, including some adapted from logic program transformation rules (notably folding) as well as others, such as rote learning and assumption introduction. We present a general strategy that applies the transformation rules in a suitable order to learn stratified frameworks, and we also propose a variant that handles the non-stratified case. We illustrate the benefits of our approach with a number of examples, which show that, on one hand, we are able to easily reconstruct other logic-based learning approaches and, on the other hand, we can work out in a very simple and natural way problems that seem to be hard for existing techniques.

Large language models~(LLMs) present an intriguing avenue of exploration in the domain of formal theorem proving. Nonetheless, the full utilization of these models, particularly in terms of demonstration formatting and organization, remains an underexplored area. In an endeavor to enhance the efficacy of LLMs, we introduce a subgoal-based demonstration learning framework, consisting of two primary elements: Firstly, drawing upon the insights of subgoal learning from the domains of reinforcement learning and robotics, we propose the construction of distinct subgoals for each demonstration example and refine these subgoals in accordance with the pertinent theories of subgoal learning. Secondly, we build upon recent advances in diffusion models to predict the optimal organization, simultaneously addressing two intricate issues that persist within the domain of demonstration organization: subset selection and order determination. Through the integration of subgoal-based learning methodologies, we have successfully increased the prevailing proof accuracy from 38.9\% to 44.3\% on the miniF2F benchmark. Furthermore, the adoption of diffusion models for demonstration organization can lead to an additional enhancement in accuracy to 45.5\%, or a $5\times$ improvement in sampling efficiency compared with the long-standing state-of-the-art method. Our code is available at \url{https://github.com/HKUNLP/subgoal-theorem-prover}.

Thomas Haigh (thomas.haigh@gmail.com) is a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee, WI, USA, and a Comenius visiting professor at Siegen University, Germany.

Today's powerful, robust SAT solvers have become primary tools for solving hard computational problems.

Higher-order logic HOL offers a very simple syntax and semantics for representing and reasoning about typed data structures. But its type system lacks advanced features where types may depend on terms. Dependent type theory offers such a rich type system, but has rather substantial conceptual differences to HOL, as well as comparatively poor proof automation support. We introduce a dependently-typed extension DHOL of HOL that retains the style and conceptual framework of HOL. Moreover, we build a translation from DHOL to HOL and implement it as a preprocessor to a HOL theorem prover, thereby obtaining a theorem prover for DHOL.

We provide a learning-based technique for guessing a winning strategy in a parity game originating from an LTL synthesis problem. A cheaply obtained guess can be useful in several applications. Not only can the guessed strategy be applied as best-effort in cases where the game's huge size prohibits rigorous approaches, but it can also increase the scalability of rigorous LTL synthesis in several ways. Firstly, checking whether a guessed strategy is winning is easier than constructing one. Secondly, even if the guess is wrong in some places, it can be fixed by strategy iteration faster than constructing one from scratch. Thirdly, the guess can be used in on-the-fly approaches to prioritize exploration in the most fruitful directions. In contrast to previous works, we (i) reflect the highly structured logical information in game's states, the so-called semantic labelling, coming from the recent LTL-to-automata translations, and (ii) learn to reflect it properly by learning from previously solved games, bringing the solving process closer to human-like reasoning.

A plethora of approaches have been proposed for joint entity-relation (ER) extraction. Most of these methods largely depend on a large amount of manually annotated training data. However, manual data annotation is time consuming, labor intensive, and error prone. Human beings learn using both data (through induction) and knowledge (through deduction). Answer Set Programming (ASP) has been a widely utilized approach for knowledge representation and reasoning that is elaboration tolerant and adept at reasoning with incomplete information. This paper proposes a new approach, ASP-enhanced Entity-Relation extraction (ASPER), to jointly recognize entities and relations by learning from both data and domain knowledge. In particular, ASPER takes advantage of the factual knowledge (represented as facts in ASP) and derived knowledge (represented as rules in ASP) in the learning process of neural network models. We have conducted experiments on two real datasets and compare our method with three baselines. The results show that our ASPER model consistently outperforms the baselines.

Although moral responsibility is not circumscribed by causality, they are both closely intermixed. Furthermore, rationally understanding the evolution of the physical world is inherently linked with the idea of causality. Thus, the decision-making applications based on automated planning inevitably have to deal with causality, especially if they consider imputability aspects or integrate references to ethical norms. The many debates around causation in the last decades have shown how complex this notion is and thus, how difficult is its integration with planning. As a result, much of the work in computational ethics relegates causality to the background, despite the considerations stated above. This paper's contribution is to provide a complete and sound translation into logic programming from an actual causation definition suitable for action languages, this definition is a formalisation of Wright's NESS test. The obtained logic program allows to deal with complex causal relations. In addition to enabling agents to reason about causality, this contribution specifically enables the computational ethics domain to handle situations that were previously out of reach. In a context where ethical considerations in decision-making are increasingly important, advances in computational ethics can greatly benefit the entire AI community.

A ProbLog program is a logic program with facts that only hold with a specified probability. In this contribution we extend this ProbLog language by the ability to answer "What if" queries. Intuitively, a ProbLog program defines a distribution by solving a system of equations in terms of mutually independent predefined Boolean random variables. In the theory of causality, Judea Pearl proposes a counterfactual reasoning for such systems of equations. Based on Pearl's calculus, we provide a procedure for processing these counterfactual queries on ProbLog programs, together with a proof of correctness and a full implementation. Using the latter, we provide insights into the influence of different parameters on the scalability of inference. Finally, we also show that our approach is consistent with CP-logic, i.e. with the causal semantics for logic programs with annotated with disjunctions.

Probabilistic logical rule learning has shown great strength in logical rule mining and knowledge graph completion. It learns logical rules to predict missing edges by reasoning on existing edges in the knowledge graph. However, previous efforts have largely been limited to only modeling chain-like Horn clauses such as $R_1(x,z)\land R_2(z,y)\Rightarrow H(x,y)$. This formulation overlooks additional contextual information from neighboring sub-graphs of entity variables $x$, $y$ and $z$. Intuitively, there is a large gap here, as local sub-graphs have been found to provide important information for knowledge graph completion. Inspired by these observations, we propose Logical Entity RePresentation (LERP) to encode contextual information of entities in the knowledge graph. A LERP is designed as a vector of probabilistic logical functions on the entity's neighboring sub-graph. It is an interpretable representation while allowing for differentiable optimization. We can then incorporate LERP into probabilistic logical rule learning to learn more expressive rules. Empirical results demonstrate that with LERP, our model outperforms other rule learning methods in knowledge graph completion and is comparable or even superior to state-of-the-art black-box methods. Moreover, we find that our model can discover a more expressive family of logical rules. LERP can also be further combined with embedding learning methods like TransE to make it more interpretable.