This paper outlines a comprehensive theoretical and architectural framework for constructing epistemically grounded artificial intelligence systems capable of propositional commitment, metacognitive reasoning, contradiction detection, and normative truth maintenance. Moving beyond the constraints of stochastic language generation, we propose a model in which artificial agents engage in structured, rule-governed reasoning that adheres to explicit epistemic norms. The approach integrates insights from epistemology, formal logic, inferential semantics, knowledge graph structuring, probabilistic justification, and immutable blockchain evidence to create systems that do not merely simulate knowledge, but operate under explicit, verifiable constraints on belief, justification, and truth. We begin with an analysis of epistemic norms in artificial reasoning, contrasting evi-dentialist, Bayesian, and logical foundations, and establishing a requirement for internal consistency and constraint against falsehood. Central to the proposed system is a prohibition against internal deception: no model component may assert what it internally contradicts.

This article develops a novel framework for modal logic based on the idea of stratified actualization, rather than the classical model of global possible worlds. Traditional Kripke semantics treat modal operators as quantification over fully determinate alternatives, neglecting the local, dynamic, and often asymmetric nature of actualization processes. We propose a system Stratified Actualization Logic (SAL) in which modalities are indexed by levels of ontological stability, interpreted as admissibility regimes. Each modality operates over a structured layer of possibility, grounded in the internal coherence of transitions between layers. We formally define the syntax and semantics of SAL, introduce its axioms, and prove soundness and completeness. Applications are discussed in connection with temporal becoming, quantum decoherence domains, and modal metaphysics. The result is a logic that captures the ontological structure of actualization without recourse to abstract possible worlds, offering a stratified alternative to standard modal realism.

We augment Assumption Based Argumentation (ABA for short) with weighted argumentation. In a nutshell, we assign weights to arguments and then derive the weight of attacks between ABA arguments. We illustrate our proposal through running examples in the field of ethical reasoning, and present an implementation based on Answer Set Programming.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising first-order logic (FOL) reasoning capabilities with applications in various areas. However, their effectiveness in complex mathematical reasoning involving multi-step FOL deductions is still under-researched. While LLMs perform competitively on established mathematical reasoning benchmarks, they struggle with multi-step FOL tasks, as demonstrated by Deepseek-Prover-V2-7B's low accuracy (4.2%) on our proposed theorem proving dataset. This issue arises from the limited exploration of diverse proof strategies and the potential for early reasoning mistakes to undermine entire proofs. To address these issues, we propose DREAM, a self-adaptive solution that enhances the Diversity and REAsonability of LLMs' generation strategies. DREAM incorporates an Axiom-Driven Strategy Diversification mechanism to promote varied strategic outcomes and a Sub-Proposition Error Feedback to help LLMs reflect on and correct their proofs. Our contributions include pioneering advancements in LLMs' mathematical reasoning through FOL theorem proving, introducing a novel inference stage solution that improves performance by 0.6% to 6.4%, and providing a curated dataset of 447 mathematical theorems in Lean 4 format for evaluation.

Approximation Fixpoint Theory (AFT) is a powerful theory covering various semantics of non-monotonic reasoning formalisms in knowledge representation such as Logic Programming and Answer Set Programming. Many semantics of such non-monotonic formalisms can be characterized as suitable fixpoints of a non-monotonic operator on a suitable lattice. Instead of working on the original lattice, AFT operates on intervals in such lattice to approximate or construct the fixpoints of interest. While AFT has been applied successfully across a broad range of non-monotonic reasoning formalisms, it is confronted by its limitations in other, relatively simple, examples. In this paper, we overcome those limitations by extending consistent AFT to deal with approximations that are more refined than intervals. Therefore, we introduce a more general notion of approximation spaces, showcase the improved expressiveness and investigate relations between different approximation spaces.

The IPARC Challenge, inspired by ARC, provides controlled program synthesis tasks over synthetic images to evaluate automatic program construction, focusing on sequence, selection, and iteration. This set of 600 tasks has resisted automated solutions. This paper presents a structured inductive programming approach with LLMs that successfully solves tasks across all IPARC categories. The controlled nature of IPARC reveals insights into LLM-based code generation, including the importance of prior structuring, LLMs' ability to aid structuring (requiring human refinement), the need to freeze correct code, the efficiency of code reuse, and how LLM-generated code can spark human creativity. These findings suggest valuable mechanisms for human-LLM collaboration in tackling complex program synthesis.

The crisis of epistemic overload in modern scientific inquiry has exposed a critical deficiency in how truth claims are assessed, validated, and integrated across time and domain. The exponential growth in peer-reviewed publications, accompanied by inconsistent replication rates, entrenched citation biases, and the sociological entanglements of scientific authorship, has rendered traditional mechanisms of epistemic filtering increasingly obsolete. Simultaneously, artificial intelligence--while having demonstrated capacity in data correlation and language generation--remains fundamentally ill-equipped to perform rigorous epistemic reasoning. This gap is not merely technical but conceptual: current AI systems lack any principled framework for evaluating the truth-promoting value of claims, discerning authoritative sources, or understanding belief as a structured probabilistic relation between agents, claims, and contexts. The present work introduces a formal architecture--Bayesian Epistemology with Weighted Authority (BEW A)--which systematically encodes the logic of belief formation, update, and decay, guided by the core axioms of Bayesian rationality, tempered by structural mechanisms for authority weighting, replication scoring, and temporal reassessment.

The goal of neuro-symbolic AI is to integrate symbolic and subsymbolic AI approaches, to overcome the limitations of either. Prominent systems include Logic Tensor Networks (LTN) or DeepProbLog, which offer neural predicates and end-to-end learning. The versatility of systems like LTNs and DeepProbLog, however, makes them less efficient in simpler settings, for instance, for discriminative machine learning, in particular in domains with many constants. Therefore, we follow a different approach: We propose to enhance symbolic machine learning schemes by giving them access to neural embeddings. In the present paper, we show this for TILDE and embeddings of constants used by TILDE in similarity predicates. The approach can be fine-tuned by further refining the embeddings depending on the symbolic theory. In experiments in three real-world domain, we show that this simple, yet effective, approach outperforms all other baseline methods in terms of the F1 score. The approach could be useful beyond this setting: Enhancing symbolic learners in this way could be extended to similarities between instances (effectively working like kernels within a logical language), for analogical reasoning, or for propositionalization. Keywords: Neuro-symbolic AI TILDE Inductive Logic Programming Neural Embeddings Logic Tensor Networks

We define a stable model semantics for fuzzy propositional formulas, which generalizes both fuzzy propositional logic and the stable model semantics of classical propositional formulas. The syntax of the language is the same as the syntax of fuzzy propositional logic, but its semantics distinguishes stable models from non-stable models. The generality of the language allows for highly configurable nonmonotonic reasoning for dynamic domains involving graded truth degrees. We show that several properties of Boolean stable models are naturally extended to this many-valued setting, and discuss how it is related to other approaches to combining fuzzy logic and the stable model semantics.

LPMLN is a recently introduced formalism that extends answer set programs by adopting the log-linear weight scheme of Markov Logic. This paper investigates the relationships between LPMLN and two other extensions of answer set programs: weak constraints to express a quantitative preference among answer sets, and P-log to incorporate probabilistic uncertainty. We present a translation of LPMLN into programs with weak constraints and a translation of P-log into LPMLN, which complement the existing translations in the opposite directions. The first translation allows us to compute the most probable stable models (i.e., MAP estimates) of LPMLN programs using standard ASP solvers. This result can be extended to other formalisms, such as Markov Logic, ProbLog, and Pearl's Causal Models, that are shown to be translatable into LPMLN. The second translation tells us how probabilistic nonmonotonicity (the ability of the reasoner to change his probabilistic model as a result of new information) of P-log can be represented in LPMLN, which yields a way to compute P-log using standard ASP solvers and MLN solvers.