We compute exact literal-weighted model counts of CNF formulas. Our algorithm employs dynamic programming, with Algebraic Decision Diagrams as the primary data structure. This technique is implemented in ADDMC, a new model counter. We empirically evaluate various heuristics that can be used with ADDMC. We also compare ADDMC to state-of-the-art exact model counters (Cachet, c2d, d4, miniC2D, and sharpSAT) on the two largest CNF model counting benchmark families (BayesNet and Planning). ADDMC solves the most benchmarks in total within the given timeout.

Abstraction is a powerful idea widely used in science, to model, reason and explain the behavior of systems in a more tractable search space, by omitting irrelevant details. While notions of abstraction have matured for deterministic systems, the case for abstracting probabilistic models is not yet fully understood. In this paper, we provide a semantical framework for analyzing such abstractions from first principles. We develop the framework in a general way, allowing for expressive languages, including logic-based ones that admit relational and hierarchical constructs with stochastic primitives. We motivate a definition of consistency between a high-level model and its low-level counterpart, but also treat the case when the high-level model is missing critical information present in the low-level model. We prove properties of abstractions, both at the level of the parameter as well as the structure of the models. We conclude with some observations about how abstractions can be derived automatically.

We consider the problem of answering queries about formulas of first-order logic based on background knowledge partially represented explicitly as other formulas, and partially represented as examples independently drawn from a fixed probability distribution. PAC semantics, introduced by Valiant, is one rigorous, general proposal for learning to reason in formal languages: although weaker than classical entailment, it allows for a powerful model theoretic framework for answering queries while requiring minimal assumptions about the form of the distribution in question. To date, however, the most significant limitation of that approach, and more generally most machine learning approaches with robustness guarantees, is that the logical language is ultimately essentially propositional, with finitely many atoms. Indeed, the theoretical findings on the learning of relational theories in such generality have been resoundingly negative. This is despite the fact that first-order logic is widely argued to be most appropriate for representing human knowledge. In this work, we present a new theoretical approach to robustly learning to reason in first-order logic, and consider universally quantified clauses over a countably infinite domain. Our results exploit symmetries exhibited by constants in the language, and generalize the notion of implicit learnability to show how queries can be computed against (implicitly) learned first-order background knowledge.

We consider the problem of learning rules from a data set that support a proof of a given query, under Valiant's PAC-Semantics. We show how any backward proof search algorithm that is sufficiently oblivious to the contents of its knowledge base can be modified to learn such rules while it searches for a proof using those rules. We note that this gives such algorithms for standard logics such as chaining and resolution.

General game playing (GGP) is a framework for evaluating an agent's general intelligence across a wide range of tasks. In the GGP competition, an agent is given the rules of a game (described as a logic program) that it has never seen before. The task is for the agent to play the game, thus generating game traces. The winner of the GGP competition is the agent that gets the best total score over all the games. In this paper, we invert this task: a learner is given game traces and the task is to learn the rules that could produce the traces. This problem is central to inductive general game playing (IGGP). We introduce a technique that automatically generates IGGP tasks from GGP games. We introduce an IGGP dataset which contains traces from 50 diverse games, such as Sudoku, Sokoban, and Checkers. We claim that IGGP is difficult for existing inductive logic programming (ILP) approaches. To support this claim, we evaluate existing ILP systems on our dataset. Our empirical results show that most of the games cannot be correctly learned by existing systems. The best performing system solves only 40% of the tasks perfectly. Our results suggest that IGGP poses many challenges to existing approaches. Furthermore, because we can automatically generate IGGP tasks from GGP games, our dataset will continue to grow with the GGP competition, as new games are added every year. We therefore think that the IGGP problem and dataset will be valuable for motivating and evaluating future research.

One challenge in fact checking is the ability to improve the transparency of the decision. We present a fact checking method that uses reference information in knowledge graphs (KGs) to assess claims and explain its decisions. KGs contain a formal representation of knowledge with semantic descriptions of entities and their relationships. We exploit such rich semantics to produce interpretable explanations for the fact checking output. As information in a KG is inevitably incomplete, we rely on logical rule discovery and on Web text mining to gather the evidence to assess a given claim. Uncertain rules and facts are turned into logical programs and the checking task is modeled as an inference problem in a probabilistic extension of answer set programs. Experiments show that the probabilistic inference enables the efficient labeling of claims with interpretable explanations, and the quality of the results is higher than state of the art baselines.

Quantified Boolean Formulas (QBFs) can be used to succinctly encode problems from domains such as formal verification, planning, and synthesis. One of the main approaches to QBF solving is Quantified Conflict Driven Clause Learning (QCDCL). By default, QCDCL assigns variables in the order of their appearance in the quantifier prefix so as to account for dependencies among variables. Dependency schemes can be used to relax this restriction and exploit independence among variables in certain cases, but only at the cost of nontrivial interferences with the proof system underlying QCDCL. We introduce dependency learning, a new technique for exploiting variable independence within QCDCL that allows solvers to learn variable dependencies on the fly. The resulting version of QCDCL enjoys improved propagation and increased flexibility in choosing variables for branching while retaining ordinary (long-distance) Q-resolution as its underlying proof system. We show that dependency learning can achieve exponential speedups over ordinary QCDCL. Experiments on standard benchmark sets demonstrate the effectiveness of this technique.

Data-driven approaches are becoming more common as problem-solving techniques in many areas of research and industry. In most cases, machine learning models are the key component of these solutions, but a solution involves multiple such models, along with significant levels of reasoning with the models' output and input. Current technologies do not make such techniques easy to use for application experts who are not fluent in machine learning nor for machine learning experts who aim at testing ideas and models on real-world data in the context of the overall AI system. We review key efforts made by various AI communities to provide languages for high-level abstractions over learning and reasoning techniques needed for designing complex AI systems. We classify the existing frameworks based on the type of techniques and the data and knowledge representations they use, provide a comparative study of the way they address the challenges of programming real-world applications, and highlight some shortcomings and future directions.

Neural symbolic processing aims to combine the generalization of logical learning approaches and the performance of neural networks. The Neural Theorem Proving (NTP) model by Rocktaschel et al (2017) learns embeddings for concepts and performs logical unification. While NTP is promising and effective in predicting facts accurately, we have little knowledge how well it can extract true relationship among data. To this end, we create synthetic logical datasets with injected relationships, which can be generated on-the-fly, to test neural-based relation learning algorithms including NTP. We show that it has difficulty recovering relationships in all but the simplest settings. Critical analysis and diagnostic experiments suggest that the optimization algorithm suffers from poor local minima due to its greedy winner-takes-all strategy in identifying the most informative structure (proof path) to pursue. We alter the NTP algorithm to increase exploration, which sharply improves performance. We argue and demonstate that it is insightful to benchmark with synthetic data with ground-truth relationships, for both evaluating models and revealing algorithmic issues.