We present a new program synthesis approach that combines an encoder-decoder based synthesis architecture with a differentiable program fixer. Our approach is inspired from the fact that human developers seldom get their program correct on the first attempt, and perform iterative testing-based program fixing to get to the desired program functionality. Similarly, our approach first learns a distribution over programs conditioned on an encoding of a set of input-output examples, and then iteratively performs fix operations using the differentiable fixer. The fixer takes as input the original examples and the current program's outputs on example inputs, and generates a new distribution over the programs with the goal of reducing the discrepancies between the current program outputs and the desired example outputs. We train our architecture end-to-end on the RobustFill domain, and show that the addition of the fixer module leads to a significant improvement on synthesis accuracy compared to using beam search.

The unification of logic and probability is a long-standing concern in AI, and more generally, in the philosophy of science. In essence, logic provides an easy way to specify properties that must hold in every possible world, and probability allows us to further quantify the weight and ratio of the worlds that must satisfy a property. To that end, numerous developments have been undertaken, culminating in proposals such as probabilistic relational models. While this progress has been notable, a general-purpose first-order knowledge representation language to reason about probabilities and dynamics, including in continuous settings, is still to emerge. In this paper, we survey recent results pertaining to the integration of logic, probability and actions in the situation calculus, which is arguably one of the oldest and most well-known formalisms. We then explore reduction theorems and programming interfaces for the language. These results are motivated in the context of cognitive robotics (as envisioned by Reiter and his colleagues) for the sake of concreteness. Overall, the advantage of proving results for such a general language is that it becomes possible to adapt them to any special-purpose fragment, including but not limited to popular probabilistic relational models.

The tension between deduction and induction is perhaps the most fundamental issue in areas such as philosophy, cognition and artificial intelligence (AI). The deduction camp concerns itself with questions about the expressiveness of formal languages for capturing knowledge about the world, together with proof systems for reasoning from such knowledge bases. The learning camp attempts to generalize from examples about partial descriptions about the world. In AI, historically, these camps have loosely divided the development of the field, but advances in cross-over areas such as statistical relational learning, neuro-symbolic systems, and high-level control have illustrated that the dichotomy is not very constructive, and perhaps even ill-formed. In this article, we survey work that provides further evidence for the connections between logic and learning. Our narrative is structured in terms of three strands: logic versus learning, machine learning for logic, and logic for machine learning, but naturally, there is considerable overlap. We place an emphasis on the following "sore" point: there is a common misconception that logic is for discrete properties, whereas probability theory and machine learning, more generally, is for continuous properties. We report on results that challenge this view on the limitations of logic, and expose the role that logic can play for learning in infinite domains.

Autonomous systems - such as cars, planes, and trains - must come with strong safety guarantees. These systems are cyber-physical, in the sense that their safety depends crucially upon the way in which their software ("cyber") components interact with their kinetic components. Cyber-physical systems (CPS) analysis tools can verify the safety of CPS by stating correctness specifications in a formal language and then verifying - via computer-checked proof - that safety-critical software components respect these specifications. Existing approaches toward formally verifying the correctness of cyber-physical systems focus primarily on constructing formal safety proofs about classical low-dimensional models of control systems. For example, the safety of an adaptive cruise control system might be established by modeling the dynamics of two cars in terms of their positions and velocities and then proving that a control policy preserves safe separation between all cars on the road for any time horizon [15]. Researchers have employed a similar approach for ensuring the correctness of proposed FAA aircraft collision avoidance protocols [12], the European Train Control System [20], and quadcopters [21]. These proofs are typically constructed and checked using a cyber-physical systems verification tool such as Flow* [4], KeYmaera X [8], or SpaceEx [6]. CPS verification tools can provide very strong safety guarantees for cyber-physical systems, but typical techniques for using these tools rely on three assumptions that break down when applying verification techniques to real autonomous systems: 1. CPS verification techniques assume that a symbolic representation of the state of the world is known a priori. For example, formal CPS models of ground robots typically assume that the system knows the positions of all relevant obstacles, at least within some error bound [16].

We propose answer-set programs that specify and compute counterfactual interventions as a basis for causality-based explanations to decisions produced by classification models. They can be applied with black-box models and models that can be specified as logic programs, such as rule-based classifiers. The main focus is on the specification and computation of maximum responsibility causal explanations. The use of additional semantic knowledge is investigated.

Mathematical proofs can be mechanised using proof assistants to eliminate gaps and errors. However, mechanisation still requires intensive labour. To promote automation, it is essential to capture high-level human mathematical reasoning, which we address as the problem of generating suitable propositions. We build a non-synthetic dataset from the largest repository of mechanised proofs and propose a task on causal reasoning, where a model is required to fill in a missing intermediate proposition given a causal context. Our experiments (using various neural sequence-to-sequence models) reveal that while the task is challenging, neural models can indeed capture non-trivial mathematical reasoning. We further propose a hierarchical transformer model that outperforms the transformer baseline.

This paper presents LEXR, a framework for explaining the decision making of recurrent neural networks (RNNs) using a formal description language called Linear Temporal Logic (LTL). LTL is the de facto standard for the specification of temporal properties in the context of formal verification and features many desirable properties that make the generated explanations easy for humans to interpret: it is a descriptive language, it has a variable-free syntax, and it can easily be translated into plain English. To generate explanations, LEXR follows the principle of counterexample-guided inductive synthesis and combines Valiant's probably approximately correct learning (PAC) with constraint solving. We prove that LEXR's explanations satisfy the PAC guarantee (provided the RNN can be described by LTL) and show empirically that these explanations are more accurate and easier-to-understand than the ones generated by recent algorithms that extract deterministic finite automata from RNNs.

In the real world, linguistic agents are also embodied agents: they perceive and act in the physical world. The notion of Language Grounding questions the interactions between language and embodiment: how do learning agents connect or ground linguistic representations to the physical world ? This question has recently been approached by the Reinforcement Learning community under the framework of instruction-following agents. In these agents, behavioral policies or reward functions are conditioned on the embedding of an instruction expressed in natural language. This paper proposes another approach: using language to condition goal generators. Given any goal-conditioned policy, one could train a language-conditioned goal generator to generate language-agnostic goals for the agent. This method allows to decouple sensorimotor learning from language acquisition and enable agents to demonstrate a diversity of behaviors for any given instruction. We propose a particular instantiation of this approach and demonstrate its benefits.

Data preprocessing is an important component of machine learning pipelines, which requires ample time and resources. An integral part of preprocessing is data transformation into the format required by a given learning algorithm. This paper outlines some of the modern data processing techniques used in relational learning that enable data fusion from different input data types and formats into a single table data representation, focusing on the propositionalization and embedding data transformation approaches. While both approaches aim at transforming data into tabular data format, they use different terminology and task definitions, are perceived to address different goals, and are used in different contexts. This paper contributes a unifying framework that allows for improved understanding of these two data transformation techniques by presenting their unified definitions, and by explaining the similarities and differences between the two approaches as variants of a unified complex data transformation task. In addition to the unifying framework, the novelty of this paper is a unifying methodology combining propositionalization and embeddings, which benefits from the advantages of both in solving complex data transformation and learning tasks. We present two efficient implementations of the unifying methodology: an instance-based PropDRM approach, and a feature-based PropStar approach to data transformation and learning, together with their empirical evaluation on several relational problems. The results show that the new algorithms can outperform existing relational learners and can solve much larger problems.

Descriptor revision by Hansson is a framework for addressing the problem of belief change. In descriptor revision, different kinds of change processes are dealt with in a joint framework. Individual change requirements are qualified by specific success conditions expressed by a belief descriptor, and belief descriptors can be combined by logical connectives. This is in contrast to the currently dominating AGM paradigm shaped by Alchourr\'on, G\"ardenfors, and Makinson, where different kinds of changes, like a revision or a contraction, are dealt with separately. In this article, we investigate the realisation of descriptor revision for a conditional logic while restricting descriptors to the conjunction of literal descriptors. We apply the principle of conditional preservation developed by Kern-Isberner to descriptor revision for conditionals, show how descriptor revision for conditionals under these restrictions can be characterised by a constraint satisfaction problem, and implement it using constraint logic programming. Since our conditional logic subsumes propositional logic, our approach also realises descriptor revision for propositional logic.