Tremendous research effort has been dedicated over the years to thoroughly investigate non-monotonic reasoning. With the abundance of non-monotonic logical formalisms, a unified theory that enables comparing the different approaches is much called for. In this paper, we present an algebraic graded logic we refer to as LogAG capable of encompassing a wide variety of non-monotonic formalisms. We build on Lin and Shoham's argument systems first developed to formalize non-monotonic commonsense reasoning. We show how to encode argument systems as LogAG theories, and prove that LogAG captures the notion of belief spaces in argument systems. Since argument systems capture default logic, autoepistemic logic, the principle of negation as failure, and circumscription, our results show that LogAG captures the before-mentioned non-monotonic logical formalisms as well. Previous results show that LogAG subsumes possibilistic logic and any non-monotonic inference relation satisfying Makinson's rationality postulates. In this way, LogAG provides a powerful unified framework for non-monotonicity.

Magic sets are a Datalog to Datalog rewriting technique to optimize query answering. The rewritten program focuses on a portion of the stable model(s) of the input program which is sufficient to answer the given query. However, the rewriting may introduce new recursive definitions, which can involve even negation and aggregations, and may slow down program evaluation. This paper enhances the magic set technique by preventing the creation of (new) recursive definitions in the rewritten program. It turns out that the new version of magic sets is closed for Datalog programs with stratified negation and aggregations, which is very convenient to obtain efficient computation of the stable model of the rewritten program. Moreover, the rewritten program is further optimized by the elimination of subsumed rules and by the efficient handling of the cases where binding propagation is lost. The research was stimulated by a challenge on the exploitation of Datalog/\textsc{dlv} for efficient reasoning on large ontologies. All proposed techniques have been hence implemented in the \textsc{dlv} system, and tested for ontological reasoning, confirming their effectiveness. Under consideration for publication in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

We introduce DeepProbLog, a neural probabilistic logic programming language that incorporates deep learning by means of neural predicates. We show how existing inference and learning techniques of the underlying probabilistic logic programming language ProbLog can be adapted for the new language. We theoretically and experimentally demonstrate that DeepProbLog supports (i) both symbolic and subsymbolic representations and inference, (ii) program induction, (iii) probabilistic (logic) programming, and (iv) (deep) learning from examples. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to propose a framework where general-purpose neural networks and expressive probabilistic-logical modeling and reasoning are integrated in a way that exploits the full expressiveness and strengths of both worlds and can be trained end-to-end based on examples.

We propose symbolic learning as extensions to standard inductive learning models such as neural nets as a means to solve few shot learning problems. We device a class of visual discrimination puzzles that calls for recognizing objects and object relationships as well learning higher-level concepts from very few images. We propose a two-phase learning framework that combines models learned from large data sets using neural nets and symbolic first-order logic formulas learned from a few shot learning instance. We develop first-order logic synthesis techniques for discriminating images by using symbolic search and logic constraint solvers. By augmenting neural nets with them, we develop and evaluate a tool that can solve few shot visual discrimination puzzles with interpretable concepts.

In Multi-Agent Path Finding (MAPF), a team of agents needs to find collision-free paths from their starting locations to their respective targets. Combined Target Assignment and Path Finding (TAPF) extends MAPF by including the problem of assigning targets to agents as a precursor to the MAPF problem. A limitation of both models is their assumption that the number of agents and targets are equal, which is invalid in some applications. We address this limitation by generalizing TAPF to allow for (1) unequal number of agents and tasks; (2) tasks to have deadlines by which they must be completed; (3) ordering of groups of tasks to be completed; and (4) tasks that are composed of a sequence of checkpoints that must be visited in a specific order. Further, we model the problem using answer set programming (ASP) to show that customizing the desired variant of the problem is simple -- one only needs to choose the appropriate combination of ASP rules to enforce it. We also demonstrate experimentally that if problem specific information can be incorporated into the ASP encoding then ASP based methods can be efficient and can scale up to solve practical applications.

An important step in the development of value alignment (VA) systems in AI is understanding how values can interrelate with facts. Designers of future VA systems will need to utilize a hybrid approach in which ethical reasoning and empirical observation interrelate successfully in machine behavior. In this article we identify two problems about this interrelation that have been overlooked by AI discussants and designers. The first problem is that many AI designers commit inadvertently a version of what has been called by moral philosophers the "naturalistic fallacy," that is, they attempt to derive an "ought" from an "is." We illustrate when and why this occurs. The second problem is that AI designers adopt training routines that fail fully to simulate human ethical reasoning in the integration of ethical principles and facts. Using concepts of quantified modal logic, we proceed to offer an approach that promises to simulate ethical reasoning in humans by connecting ethical principles on the one hand and propositions about states of affairs on the other.

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.