Graphs can represent relational information among entities and graph structures are widely used in many intelligent tasks such as search, recommendation, and question answering. However, most of the graph-structured data in practice suffers from incompleteness, and thus link prediction becomes an important research problem. Though many models are proposed for link prediction, the following two problems are still less explored: (1) Most methods model each link independently without making use of the rich information from relevant links, and (2) existing models are mostly designed based on associative learning and do not take reasoning into consideration. With these concerns, in this paper, we propose Graph Collaborative Reasoning (GCR), which can use the neighbor link information for relational reasoning on graphs from logical reasoning perspectives. We provide a simple approach to translate a graph structure into logical expressions, so that the link prediction task can be converted into a neural logic reasoning problem. We apply logical constrained neural modules to build the network architecture according to the logical expression and use back propagation to efficiently learn the model parameters, which bridges differentiable learning and symbolic reasoning in a unified architecture. To show the effectiveness of our work, we conduct experiments on graph-related tasks such as link prediction and recommendation based on commonly used benchmark datasets, and our graph collaborative reasoning approach achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Over the last couple of decades, there has been a considerable effort devoted to the problem of updating logic programs under the stable model semantics (a.k.a. answer-set programs) or, in other words, the problem of characterising the result of bringing up-to-date a logic program when the world it describes changes. Whereas the state-of-the-art approaches are guided by the same basic intuitions and aspirations as belief updates in the context of classical logic, they build upon fundamentally different principles and methods, which have prevented a unifying framework that could embrace both belief and rule updates. In this paper, we will overview some of the main approaches and results related to answer-set programming updates, while pointing out some of the main challenges that research in this topic has faced.

We propose an efficient interpretable neuro-symbolic model to solve Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) problems. In this model, which is built from a set of meta-rules organised in a hierarchical structure, first-order rules are invented by learning embeddings to match facts and body predicates of a meta-rule. To instantiate it, we specifically design an expressive set of generic meta-rules, and demonstrate they generate a consequent fragment of Horn clauses. During training, we inject a controlled \pw{Gumbel} noise to avoid local optima and employ interpretability-regularization term to further guide the convergence to interpretable rules. We empirically validate our model on various tasks (ILP, visual genome, reinforcement learning) against several state-of-the-art methods.

Is knowledge definable as justified true belief ("JTB")? We argue that one can legitimately answer positively or negatively, depending on whether or not one's true belief is justified by what we call adequate reasons. To facilitate our argument we introduce a simple propositional logic of reason-based belief, and give an axiomatic characterization of the notion of adequacy for reasons. We show that this logic is sufficiently flexible to accommodate various useful features, including quantification over reasons. We use our framework to contrast two notions of JTB: one internalist, the other externalist. We argue that Gettier cases essentially challenge the internalist notion but not the externalist one. Our approach commits us to a form of infallibilism about knowledge, but it also leaves us with a puzzle, namely whether knowledge involves the possession of only adequate reasons, or leaves room for some inadequate reasons. We favor the latter position, which reflects a milder and more realistic version of infallibilism.

Efficient omission of symmetric solution candidates is essential for combinatorial problem-solving. Most of the existing approaches are instance-specific and focus on the automatic computation of Symmetry Breaking Constraints (SBCs) for each given problem instance. However, the application of such approaches to large-scale instances or advanced problem encodings might be problematic since the computed SBCs are propositional and, therefore, can neither be meaningfully interpreted nor transferred to other instances. As a result, a time-consuming recomputation of SBCs must be done before every invocation of a solver. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a new model-oriented approach for Answer Set Programming that lifts the SBCs of small problem instances into a set of interpretable first-order constraints using the Inductive Logic Programming paradigm. Experiments demonstrate the ability of our framework to learn general constraints from instance-specific SBCs for a collection of combinatorial problems. The obtained results indicate that our approach significantly outperforms a state-of-the-art instance-specific method as well as the direct application of a solver.

Inductive logic programming is a type of machine learning in which logic programs are learned from examples. This learning typically occurs relative to some background knowledge provided as a logic program. This dissertation introduces bottom preprocessing, a method for generating initial constraints on the programs an ILP system must consider. Bottom preprocessing applies ideas from inverse entailment to modern ILP systems. Inverse entailment is an influential early ILP approach introduced with Progol. This dissertation also presents $\bot$-Popper, an implementation of bottom preprocessing for the modern ILP system Popper. It is shown experimentally that bottom preprocessing can reduce learning times of ILP systems on hard problems. This reduction can be especially significant when the amount of background knowledge in the problem is large.

Traditional automated theorem provers for first-order logic depend on speed-optimized search and many handcrafted heuristics that are designed to work best over a wide range of domains. Machine learning approaches in literature either depend on these traditional provers to bootstrap themselves or fall short on reaching comparable performance. In this paper, we propose a general incremental learning algorithm for training domain specific provers for first-order logic without equality, based only on a basic given-clause algorithm, but using a learned clause-scoring function. Clauses are represented as graphs and presented to transformer networks with spectral features. To address the sparsity and the initial lack of training data as well as the lack of a natural curriculum, we adapt hindsight experience replay to theorem proving, so as to be able to learn even when no proof can be found. We show that provers trained this way can match and sometimes surpass state-of-the-art traditional provers on the TPTP dataset in terms of both quantity and quality of the proofs.

Are you a Ph.D. student interested in an Internship in the fields of Automated Reasoning, Computer Vision, Machine Learning, Quantum Computing, Robotics, Speech Technologies?Do you enjoy diving deep into hard technical problems and coming up with solutions that enable successful products that improve the lives of people in a meaningful way?If this describes you, come join our science teams at Amazon. As a Science Intern, you will have access to large datasets with billions of images and video to build large-scale systems. Additionally, you will analyze and model terabytes of text, images, and other types of data to solve real-world problems and translate business and functional requirements into quick prototypes or proofs of concept.We are looking for smart scientists capable of using a variety of domain expertise to invent, design, evangelize, and implement state-of-the-art solutions for never-before-solved problems.Amazon has positions available for Applied Science interns across multiple locations in the US and Canada.Amazon is committed to a diverse and inclusive workforce. Amazon is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, protected veteran status, disability, age, or other legally protected status. For individuals with disabilities who would like to request an accommodation, please visit https://www.amazon.jobs/en/disability/us.

The idea of representing symbolic knowledge in connectionist systems has been a long-standing endeavour which has attracted much attention recently with the objective of combining machine learning and scalable sound reasoning. Early work has shown a correspondence between propositional logic and symmetrical neural networks which nevertheless did not scale well with the number of variables and whose training regime was inefficient. In this paper, we introduce Logical Boltzmann Machines (LBM), a neurosymbolic system that can represent any propositional logic formula in strict disjunctive normal form. We prove equivalence between energy minimization in LBM and logical satisfiability thus showing that LBM is capable of sound reasoning. We evaluate reasoning empirically to show that LBM is capable of finding all satisfying assignments of a class of logical formulae by searching fewer than 0.75% of the possible (approximately 1 billion) assignments. We compare learning in LBM with a symbolic inductive logic programming system, a state-of-the-art neurosymbolic system and a purely neural network-based system, achieving better learning performance in five out of seven data sets.

The two most effective branching strategies LRB and VSIDS perform differently on different types of instances. Generally, LRB is more effective on crafted instances, while VSIDS is more effective on application ones. However, distinguishing the types of instances is difficult. To overcome this drawback, we propose a branching strategy selection approach based on the vivification ratio. This approach uses the LRB branching strategy more to solve the instances with a very low vivification ratio. We tested the instances from the main track of SAT competitions in recent years. The results show that the proposed approach is robust and it significantly increases the number of solved instances. It is worth mentioning that, with the help of our approach, the solver Maple\_CM can solve more than 16 instances for the benchmark from the 2020 SAT competition.