Knowledge Graph (KG) reasoning has received significant attention in the fields of artificial intelligence and knowledge engineering, owing to its ability to autonomously deduce new knowledge and consequently enhance the availability and precision of downstream applications. However, current methods predominantly concentrate on a single form of neural or symbolic reasoning, failing to effectively integrate the inherent strengths of both approaches. Furthermore, the current prevalent methods primarily focus on addressing a single reasoning scenario, presenting limitations in meeting the diverse demands of real-world reasoning tasks. Unifying the neural and symbolic methods, as well as diverse reasoning scenarios in one model is challenging as there is a natural representation gap between symbolic rules and neural networks, and diverse scenarios exhibit distinct knowledge structures and specific reasoning objectives. To address these issues, we propose a unified neurosymbolic reasoning framework, namely Tunsr, for KG reasoning. Tunsr first introduces a consistent structure of reasoning graph that starts from the query entity and constantly expands subsequent nodes by iteratively searching posterior neighbors. Based on it, a forward logic message-passing mechanism is proposed to update both the propositional representations and attentions, as well as first-order logic (FOL) representations and attentions of each node. In this way, Tunsr conducts the transformation of merging multiple rules by merging possible relations at each step. Finally, the FARI algorithm is proposed to induce FOL rules by constantly performing attention calculations over the reasoning graph. Extensive experimental results on 19 datasets of four reasoning scenarios (transductive, inductive, interpolation, and extrapolation) demonstrate the effectiveness of Tunsr.

Reasoning with quantifier expressions in natural language combines logical and arithmetical features, transcending strict divides between qualitative and quantitative. Our topic is this cooperation of styles as it occurs in common linguistic usage and its extension into the broader practice of natural language plus "grassroots mathematics". We begin with a brief review of first-order logic with counting operators and cardinality comparisons. This system is known to be of high complexity, and drowns out finer aspects of the combination of logic and counting. We move to a small fragment that can represent numerical syllogisms and basic reasoning about comparative size: monadic first-order logic with counting. We provide normal forms that allow for axiomatization, determine which arithmetical notions can be defined on finite and on infinite models, and conversely, we discuss which logical notions can be defined out of purely arithmetical ones, and what sort of (non-)classical logics can be induced. Next, we investigate a series of strengthenings, again using normal form methods. The monadic second-order version is close, in a precise sense, to additive Presburger Arithmetic, while versions with the natural device of tuple counting take us to Diophantine equations, making the logic undecidable. We also define a system that combines basic modal logic over binary accessibility relations with counting, needed to formulate ubiquitous reasoning patterns such as the Pigeonhole Principle. We return to our starting point in natural language, confronting the architecture of our formal systems with linguistic quantifier vocabulary and syntax. We conclude with some general thoughts on yet further entanglements of logic and counting in formal systems, on rethinking the qualitative/quantitative divide, and on connecting our analysis to empirical findings in cognitive science.

This position paper provides a critical but constructive discussion of current practices in benchmarking and evaluative practices in the field of formal reasoning and automated theorem proving. We take the position that open code, open data, and benchmarks that are complete and error-free will accelerate progress in this field. We identify practices that create barriers to contributing to this field and suggest ways to remove them. We also discuss some of the practices that might produce misleading evaluative information. We aim to create discussions that bring together people from various groups contributing to automated theorem proving, autoformalization, and informal reasoning.

Answer Set Programming Modulo Theories (ASPMT) is a new framework of tight integration of answer set programming (ASP) and satisfiability modulo theories (SMT). Similar to the relationship between first-order logic and SMT, it is based on a recent proposal of the functional stable model semantics by fixing interpretations of background theories. Analogously to a known relationship between ASP and SA T, "tight" ASPMT programs can be translated into SMT instances. We demonstrate the usefulness of ASPMT by enhancing action language C + to handle continuous changes as well as discrete changes. We reformulate the semantics of C + in terms of ASPMT, and show that SMT solvers can be used to compute the language. We also show how the language can represent cumulative effects on continuous resources.

Pearl observes that causal knowledge enables predicting the effects of interventions, such as actions, whereas descriptive knowledge only permits drawing conclusions from observation. This paper extends Pearl's approach to causality and interventions to the setting of stratified abductive logic programs. It shows how stable models of such programs can be given a causal interpretation by building on philosophical foundations and recent work by Bochman and Eelink et al. In particular, it provides a translation of abductive logic programs into causal systems, thereby clarifying the informal causal reading of logic program rules and supporting principled reasoning about external actions. The main result establishes that the stable model semantics for stratified programs conforms to key philosophical principles of causation, such as causal sufficiency, natural necessity, and irrelevance of unobserved effects. This justifies the use of stratified abductive logic programs as a framework for causal modeling and for predicting the effects of interventions.

The volume and diversity of digital information have led to a growing reliance on Machine Learning techniques, such as Natural Language Processing, for interpreting and accessing appropriate data. While vector and graph embeddings represent data for similarity tasks, current state-of-the-art pipelines lack guaranteed explainability, failing to determine similarity for given full texts accurately. These considerations can also be applied to classifiers exploiting generative language models with logical prompts, which fail to correctly distinguish between logical implication, indifference, and inconsistency, despite being explicitly trained to recognise the first two classes. We present a novel pipeline designed for hybrid explainability to address this. Our methodology combines graphs and logic to produce First-Order Logic representations, creating machine- and human-readable representations through Montague Grammar. Preliminary results indicate the effectiveness of this approach in accurately capturing full text similarity. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first approach to differentiate between implication, inconsistency, and indifference for text classification tasks. To address the limitations of existing approaches, we use three self-contained datasets annotated for the former classification task to determine the suitability of these approaches in capturing sentence structure equivalence, logical connectives, and spatiotemporal reasoning. We also use these data to compare the proposed method with language models pre-trained for detecting sentence entailment. The results show that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art models, indicating that natural language understanding cannot be easily generalised by training over extensive document corpora. This work offers a step toward more transparent and reliable Information Retrieval from extensive textual data.

Research, innovation and practical capital investment have been increasing rapidly toward the realization of autonomous physical agents. This includes industrial and service robots, unmanned aerial vehicles, embedded control devices, and a number of other realizations of cybernetic/mechatronic implementations of intelligent autonomous devices. In this paper, we consider a stylized version of robotic care, which would normally involve a two-level Reinforcement Learning procedure that trains a policy for both lower level physical movement decisions as well as higher level conceptual tasks and their sub-components. In order to deliver greater safety and reliability in the system, we present the general formulation of this as a two-level optimization scheme which incorporates control at the lower level, and classical planning at the higher level, integrated with a capacity for learning. This synergistic integration of multiple methodologies -- control, classical planning, and RL -- presents an opportunity for greater insight for algorithm development, leading to more efficient and reliable performance. Here, the notion of reliability pertains to physical safety and interpretability into an otherwise black box operation of autonomous agents, concerning users and regulators. This work presents the necessary background and general formulation of the optimization framework, detailing each component and its integration with the others.

We formulate learning guided Automated Theorem Proving as Partial Label Learning, building the first bridge across these fields of research and providing a theoretical framework for dealing with alternative proofs during learning. We use the plCoP theorem prover to demonstrate that methods from the Partial Label Learning literature tend to increase the performance of learning assisted theorem provers.

The recently introduced dependent typed higher-order logic (DHOL) offers an interesting compromise between expressiveness and automation support. It sacrifices the decidability of its type system in order to significantly extend its expressiveness over standard HOL. Yet it retains strong automated theorem proving support via a sound and complete translation to HOL. We leverage this design to extend DHOL with refinement and quotient types. Both of these are commonly requested by practitioners but rarely provided by automated theorem provers. This is because they inherently require undecidable typing and thus are very difficult to retrofit to decidable type systems. But with DHOL already doing the heavy lifting, adding them is not only possible but elegant and simple. Concretely, we add refinement and quotient types as special cases of subtyping. This turns the associated canonical inclusion resp. projection maps into identity maps and thus avoids costly changes in representation. We present the syntax, semantics, and translation to HOL for the extended language, including the proofs of soundness and completeness.

In this work, we investigate whether improving task clarity can enhance reasoning ability of large language models, focusing on theorem proving in Coq. We introduce a concept-level metric to evaluate task clarity and show that adding structured semantic context to the standard input used by modern LLMs, leads to a 1.85$\times$ improvement in clarity score (44.5\%~$\rightarrow$~82.3\%). Using the general-purpose model \texttt{DeepSeek-V3}, our approach leads to a 2.1$\times$ improvement in proof success (21.8\%~$\rightarrow$~45.8\%) and outperforms the previous state-of-the-art \texttt{Graph2Tac} (33.2\%). We evaluate this on 1,386 theorems randomly sampled from 15 standard Coq packages, following the same evaluation protocol as \texttt{Graph2Tac}. Furthermore, fine-tuning smaller models on our structured data can achieve even higher performance (48.6\%). Our method uses selective concept unfolding to enrich task descriptions, and employs a Planner--Executor architecture. These findings highlight the value of structured task representations in bridging the gap between understanding and reasoning.