Argumentation problems are concerned with determining the acceptability of a set of arguments from their relational structure. When the available information is uncertain, probabilistic argumentation frameworks provide modelling tools to account for it. The first contribution of this paper is a novel interpretation of probabilistic argumentation frameworks as probabilistic logic programs. Probabilistic logic programs are logic programs in which some of the facts are annotated with probabilities. We show that the programs representing probabilistic argumentation frameworks do not satisfy a common assumption in probabilistic logic programming (PLP) semantics, which is, that probabilistic facts fully capture the uncertainty in the domain under investigation. The second contribution of this paper is then a novel PLP semantics for programs where a choice of probabilistic facts does not uniquely determine the truth assignment of the logical atoms. The third contribution of this paper is the implementation of a PLP system supporting this semantics: smProbLog. smProbLog is a novel PLP framework based on the probabilistic logic programming language ProbLog. smProbLog supports many inference and learning tasks typical of PLP, which, together with our first contribution, provide novel reasoning tools for probabilistic argumentation. We evaluate our approach with experiments analyzing the computational cost of the proposed algorithms and their application to a dataset of argumentation problems.

We describe two systems that use text-davinci-003, a large language model, for the automatized correction of (i) exercises in translating back and forth between natural language and the languages of propositional logic and first-order predicate logic and (ii) exercises in writing simple arguments in natural language in non-mathematical scenarios.

In situations such as habitat construction, station inspection, or cooperative exploration, incorrect assumptions about the environment or task across the team could lead to mission failure. Thus it is important to resolve any ambiguity about the mission between teammates before embarking on a commanded task. The safeguards guaranteed by formal methods can be used to synthesize correct-by-construction reactive controllers for a robot using Linear Temporal Logic. If a robot fails to synthesize a controller given an instruction, it is clear that there exists a logical inconsistency in the environmental assumptions and/or described interactions. These specifications however are typically crafted in a language unique to the verification framework, requiring the human collaborator to be fluent in the software tool used to construct it. Furthermore, if the controller fails to synthesize, it may prove difficult to easily repair the specification. Language is a natural medium to generate these specifications using modern symbol grounding techniques. Using language empowers non-expert humans to describe tasks to robot teammates while retaining the benefits of formal verification. Additionally, dialogue could be used to inform robots about the environment and/or resolve any ambiguities before mission execution. This paper introduces an architecture for natural language interaction using a symbolic representation that informs the construction of a specification in Linear Temporal Logic. The novel aspect of this approach is that it provides a mechanism for resolving synthesis failure by hypothesizing corrections to the specification that are verified through human-robot dialogue. Experiments involving the proposed architecture are demonstrated using a simulation of an Astrobee robot navigating in the International Space Station.

We study the effectiveness of neural sequence models for premise selection in automated theorem proving, one of the main bottlenecks in the formalization of mathematics. We propose a two stage approach for this task that yields good results for the premise selection task on the Mizar corpus while avoiding the handengineered features of existing state-of-the-art models. To our knowledge, this is the first time deep learning has been applied to theorem proving on a large scale.

We present Scallop, a language which combines the benefits of deep learning and logical reasoning. Scallop enables users to write a wide range of neurosymbolic applications and train them in a data- and compute-efficient manner. It achieves these goals through three key features: 1) a flexible symbolic representation that is based on the relational data model; 2) a declarative logic programming language that is based on Datalog and supports recursion, aggregation, and negation; and 3) a framework for automatic and efficient differentiable reasoning that is based on the theory of provenance semirings. We evaluate Scallop on a suite of eight neurosymbolic applications from the literature. Our evaluation demonstrates that Scallop is capable of expressing algorithmic reasoning in diverse and challenging AI tasks, provides a succinct interface for machine learning programmers to integrate logical domain knowledge, and yields solutions that are comparable or superior to state-of-the-art models in terms of accuracy. Furthermore, Scallop's solutions outperform these models in aspects such as runtime and data efficiency, interpretability, and generalizability.

Basic connectionist principles imply that grammars should take the form of systems of parallel soft constraints defining an optimization problem the solutions to which are the well-formed structures in the language. Such Harmonic Grammars have been successfully applied to a number of problems in the theory of natural languages. Here it is shown that formal languages too can be specified by Harmonic Grammars, rather than by conventional serial re-write rule systems. In collaboration with Geraldine Legendre, Yoshiro Miyata, and Alan Prince, I have been studying how symbolic computation in human cognition can arise naturally as a higher-level virtual machine realized in appropriately designed lower-level con(cid:173) nectionist networks.

The most commonly used neural network models are not well suited to direct digital implementations because each node needs to per(cid:173) form a large number of operations between floating point values. Fortunately, the ability to learn from examples and to generalize is not restricted to networks ofthis type. Indeed, networks where each node implements a simple Boolean function (Boolean networks) can be designed in such a way as to exhibit similar properties. Two algorithms that generate Boolean networks from examples are pre(cid:173) sented. The results show that these algorithms generalize very well in a class of problems that accept compact Boolean network descriptions.

We give results about the learnability and required complexity of logical formulae to solve classification problems. These results are obtained by linking propositional logic with kernel machines. In particular we show that decision trees and disjunctive normal forms (DNF) can be repre- sented by the help of a special kernel, linking regularized risk to separa- tion margin. Subsequently we derive a number of lower bounds on the required complexity of logic formulae using properties of algorithms for generation of linear estimators, such as perceptron and maximal percep- tron learning.

Aiming towards the development of a general clustering theory, we discuss abstract axiomatization for clustering. In this respect, we follow up on the work of Kelinberg, (Kleinberg) that showed an impossibility result for such axiomatization. We argue that an impossibility result is not an inherent feature of clustering, but rather, to a large extent, it is an artifact of the specific formalism used in Kleinberg. As opposed to previous work focusing on clustering functions, we propose to address clustering quality measures as the primitive object to be axiomatized. We show that principles like those formulated in Kleinberg's axioms can be readily expressed in the latter framework without leading to inconsistency.

We present a logical system that combines the well-known classical epistemic concepts of belief and knowledge with a concept of evidence such that the intuitive principle \textit{`evidence yields belief and knowledge'} is satisfied. Our approach relies on previous works of the first author \cite{lewjlc2, lewigpl, lewapal} who introduced a modal system containing $S5$-style principles for the reasoning about intutionistic truth (i.e. \textit{proof}) and, inspired by \cite{artpro}, combined that system with concepts of \textit{intuitionistic} belief and knowledge. We consider that combined system and replace the constructive concept of \textit{proof} with a classical notion of \textit{evidence}. This results in a logic that combines modal system $S5$ with classical epistemic principles where $\square\varphi$ reads as `$\varphi$ is evident' in an epistemic sense. Inspired by \cite{lewapal}, and in contrast to the usual possible worlds semantics found in the literature, we propose here a relational, frame-based semantics where belief and knowledge are not modeled via accessibility relations but directly as sets of propositions (sets of sets of worlds).