In this expository article we highlight the relevance of explanations for artificial intelligence, in general, and for the newer developments in {\em explainable AI}, referring to origins and connections of and among different approaches. We describe in simple terms, explanations in data management and machine learning that are based on attribution-scores, and counterfactuals as found in the area of causality. We elaborate on the importance of logical reasoning when dealing with counterfactuals, and their use for score computation.

We introduce algebraic machine reasoning, a new reasoning framework that is well-suited for abstract reasoning. Effectively, algebraic machine reasoning reduces the difficult process of novel problem-solving to routine algebraic computation. The fundamental algebraic objects of interest are the ideals of some suitably initialized polynomial ring. We shall explain how solving Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPMs) can be realized as computational problems in algebra, which combine various well-known algebraic subroutines that include: Computing the Gr\"obner basis of an ideal, checking for ideal containment, etc. Crucially, the additional algebraic structure satisfied by ideals allows for more operations on ideals beyond set-theoretic operations. Our algebraic machine reasoning framework is not only able to select the correct answer from a given answer set, but also able to generate the correct answer with only the question matrix given. Experiments on the I-RAVEN dataset yield an overall $93.2\%$ accuracy, which significantly outperforms the current state-of-the-art accuracy of $77.0\%$ and exceeds human performance at $84.4\%$ accuracy.

Cyberlogic is an enabling logical foundation for building and analyzing digital transactions that involve the exchange of digital forms of evidence. It is based on an extension of (first-order) intuitionistic predicate logic with an attestation and a knowledge modality. The key ideas underlying Cyberlogic are extremely simple, as (1) public keys correspond to authorizations, (2) transactions are specified as distributed logic programs, and (3) verifiable evidence is collected by means of distributed proof search. Verifiable evidence, in particular, are constructed from extra-logical elements such as signed documents and cryptographic signatures. Despite this conceptual simplicity of Cyberlogic, central features of authorization policies including trust, delegation, and revocation of authority are definable. An expressive temporal-epistemic logic for specifying distributed authorization policies and protocols is therefore definable in Cyberlogic using a trusted time source. We describe the distributed execution of Cyberlogic programs based on the hereditary Harrop fragment in terms of distributed proof search, and we illustrate some fundamental issues in the distributed construction of certificates. The main principles of encoding and executing cryptographic protocols in Cyberlogic are demonstrated. Finally, a functional encryption scheme is proposed for checking certificates of evidential transactions when policies are kept private.

To make robots accessible to a broad audience, it is critical to endow them with the ability to take universal modes of communication, like commands given in natural language, and extract a concrete desired task specification, defined using a formal language like linear temporal logic (LTL). In this paper, we present a learning-based approach for translating from natural language commands to LTL specifications with very limited human-labeled training data. This is in stark contrast to existing natural-language to LTL translators, which require large human-labeled datasets, often in the form of labeled pairs of LTL formulas and natural language commands, to train the translator. To reduce reliance on human data, our approach generates a large synthetic training dataset through algorithmic generation of LTL formulas, conversion to structured English, and then exploiting the paraphrasing capabilities of modern large language models (LLMs) to synthesize a diverse corpus of natural language commands corresponding to the LTL formulas. We use this generated data to finetune an LLM and apply a constrained decoding procedure at inference time to ensure the returned LTL formula is syntactically correct. We evaluate our approach on three existing LTL/natural language datasets and show that we can translate natural language commands at 75\% accuracy with far less human data ($\le$12 annotations). Moreover, when training on large human-annotated datasets, our method achieves higher test accuracy (95\% on average) than prior work. Finally, we show the translated formulas can be used to plan long-horizon, multi-stage tasks on a 12D quadrotor.

Search-optimization problems are plentiful in scientific and engineering domains. Artificial intelligence has long contributed to the development of search algorithms and declarative programming languages geared toward solving and modeling search-optimization problems. Automated reasoning and knowledge representation are the subfields of AI that are particularly vested in these developments. Many popular automated reasoning paradigms provide users with languages supporting optimization statements: answer set programming or MaxSAT on minone, to name a few. These paradigms vary significantly in their languages and in the ways they express quality conditions on computed solutions. Here we propose a unifying framework of so-called weight systems that eliminates syntactic distinctions between paradigms and allows us to see essential similarities and differences between optimization statements provided by paradigms. This unifying outlook has significant simplifying and explanatory potential in the studies of optimization and modularity in automated reasoning and knowledge representation. It also supplies researchers with a convenient tool for proving the formal properties of distinct frameworks; bridging these frameworks; and facilitating the development of translational solvers.

Currently, the dominant paradigm in AI safety is alignment with human values. Here we describe progress on developing an alternative approach to safety, based on ethical rationalism (Gewirth, 1978), and propose an inherently safe implementation path via hybrid theorem provers in a sandbox. As AGIs evolve, their alignment may fade, but their rationality can only increase (otherwise more rational ones will have a significant evolutionary advantage) so an approach that ties their ethics to their rationality has clear long-term advantages.

In this paper we recall some results for conditional events, compound conditionals, conditional random quantities, p-consistency, and p-entailment. Then, we show the equivalence between bets on conditionals and conditional bets, by reviewing de Finetti's trivalent analysis of conditionals. But our approach goes beyond de Finetti's early trivalent logical analysis and is based on his later ideas, aiming to take his proposals to a higher level. We examine two recent articles that explore trivalent logics for conditionals and their definitions of logical validity and compare them with our approach to compound conditionals. We prove a Probabilistic Deduction Theorem for conditional events. After that, we study some probabilistic deduction theorems, by presenting several examples. We focus on iterated conditionals and the invalidity of the Import-Export principle in the light of our Probabilistic Deduction Theorem. We use the inference from a disjunction, "$A$ or $B$", to the conditional,"if not-$A$ then $B$", as an example to show the invalidity of the Import-Export principle. We also introduce a General Import-Export principle and we illustrate it by examining some p-valid inference rules of System P. Finally, we briefly discuss some related work relevant to AI.

We present the ASP-based visualization tool, clingraph, which aims at visualizing various concepts of ASP by means of ASP itself. This idea traces back to the aspviz tool and clingraph redevelops and extends it in the context of modern ASP systems. More precisely, clingraph takes graph specifications in terms of ASP facts and hands them over to the graph visualization system graphviz. The use of ASP provides a great interface between logic programs and/or answer sets and their visualization. Also, clingraph offers a python API that extends this ease of interfacing to clingo's API, and in turn to connect and monitor various aspects of the solving process.

Partially Observable Monte Carlo Planning (POMCP) is an efficient solver for Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs). It allows scaling to large state spaces by computing an approximation of the optimal policy locally and online, using a Monte Carlo Tree Search based strategy. However, POMCP suffers from sparse reward function, namely, rewards achieved only when the final goal is reached, particularly in environments with large state spaces and long horizons. Recently, logic specifications have been integrated into POMCP to guide exploration and to satisfy safety requirements. However, such policy-related rules require manual definition by domain experts, especially in real-world scenarios. In this paper, we use inductive logic programming to learn logic specifications from traces of POMCP executions, i.e., sets of belief-action pairs generated by the planner. Specifically, we learn rules expressed in the paradigm of answer set programming. We then integrate them inside POMCP to provide soft policy bias toward promising actions. In the context of two benchmark scenarios, rocksample and battery, we show that the integration of learned rules from small task instances can improve performance with fewer Monte Carlo simulations and in larger task instances. We make our modified version of POMCP publicly available at https://github.com/GiuMaz/pomcp_clingo.git.

In the context of abstract argumentation, we present the benefits of considering temporality, i.e. the order in which arguments are enunciated, as well as causality. We propose a formal method to rewrite the concepts of acyclic abstract argumentation frameworks into an action language, that allows us to model the evolution of the world, and to establish causal relationships between the enunciation of arguments and their consequences, whether direct or indirect. An Answer Set Programming implementation is also proposed, as well as perspectives towards explanations.