In the context of large language models (LLMs), current advanced reasoning methods have made impressive strides in various reasoning tasks. However, when it comes to logical reasoning tasks, major challenges remain in both efficacy and efficiency. This is rooted in the fact that these systems fail to fully leverage the inherent structure of logical tasks throughout the reasoning processes such as decomposition, search, and resolution. To address this, we propose a logic-complete reasoning framework, Aristotle, with three key components: Logical Decomposer, Logical Search Router, and Logical Resolver. In our framework, symbolic expressions and logical rules are comprehensively integrated into the entire reasoning process, significantly alleviating the bottlenecks of logical reasoning, i.e., reducing sub-task complexity, minimizing search errors, and resolving logical contradictions. The experimental results on several datasets demonstrate that Aristotle consistently outperforms state-of-the-art reasoning frameworks in both accuracy and efficiency, particularly excelling in complex logical reasoning scenarios. We will open-source all our code at https://github.com/Aiden0526/Aristotle.

Reasoning about the causes behind observations is crucial to the formalization of rationality. While extensive research has been conducted on root cause analysis, most studies have predominantly focused on deterministic settings. In this paper, we investigate causation in more realistic nondeterministic domains, where the agent does not have any control on and may not know the choices that are made by the environment. We build on recent preliminary work on actual causation in the nondeterministic situation calculus to formalize more sophisticated forms of reasoning about actual causes in such domains. We investigate the notions of ``Certainly Causes'' and ``Possibly Causes'' that enable the representation of actual cause for agent actions in these domains. We then show how regression in the situation calculus can be extended to reason about such notions of actual causes.

AI for Mathematics (AI4Math) is not only intriguing intellectually but also crucial for AI-driven discovery in science, engineering, and beyond. Extensive efforts on AI4Math have mirrored techniques in NLP, in particular, training large language models on carefully curated math datasets in text form. As a complementary yet less explored avenue, formal mathematical reasoning is grounded in formal systems such as proof assistants, which can verify the correctness of reasoning and provide automatic feedback. In this position paper, we advocate for formal mathematical reasoning and argue that it is indispensable for advancing AI4Math to the next level. In recent years, we have seen steady progress in using AI to perform formal reasoning, including core tasks such as theorem proving and autoformalization, as well as emerging applications such as verifiable generation of code and hardware designs. However, significant challenges remain to be solved for AI to truly master mathematics and achieve broader impact. We summarize existing progress, discuss open challenges, and envision critical milestones to measure future success. At this inflection point for formal mathematical reasoning, we call on the research community to come together to drive transformative advancements in this field.

The suite of datasets commonly used to train and evaluate the mathematical capabilities of AI-based mathematical copilots (primarily large language models) exhibit several shortcomings. These limitations include a restricted scope of mathematical complexity, typically not exceeding lower undergraduate-level mathematics, binary rating protocols and other issues, which makes comprehensive proof-based evaluation suites difficult. We systematically explore these limitations and contend that enhancing the capabilities of large language models, or any forthcoming advancements in AI-based mathematical assistants (copilots or "thought partners"), necessitates a paradigm shift in the design of mathematical datasets and the evaluation criteria of mathematical ability: It is necessary to move away from result-based datasets (theorem statement to theorem proof) and convert the rich facets of mathematical research practice to data LLMs can train on. Examples of these are mathematical workflows (sequences of atomic, potentially subfield-dependent tasks that are often performed when creating new mathematics), which are an important part of the proof-discovery process. Additionally, we advocate for mathematical dataset developers to consider the concept of "motivated proof", introduced by G. P\'olya in 1949, which can serve as a blueprint for datasets that offer a better proof learning signal, alleviating some of the mentioned limitations. Lastly, we introduce math datasheets for datasets, extending the general, dataset-agnostic variants of datasheets: We provide a questionnaire designed specifically for math datasets that we urge dataset creators to include with their datasets. This will make creators aware of potential limitations of their datasets while at the same time making it easy for readers to assess it from the point of view of training and evaluating mathematical copilots.

Although Answer Set Programming (ASP) allows constraining neural-symbolic (NeSy) systems, its employment is hindered by the prohibitive costs of computing stable models and the CPU-bound nature of state-of-the-art solvers. To this end, we propose Answer Set Networks (ASN), a NeSy solver. Based on Graph Neural Networks (GNN), ASNs are a scalable approach to ASP-based Deep Probabilistic Logic Programming (DPPL). Specifically, we show how to translate ASPs into ASNs and demonstrate how ASNs can efficiently solve the encoded problem by leveraging GPU's batching and parallelization capabilities. Our experimental evaluations demonstrate that ASNs outperform state-of-the-art CPU-bound NeSy systems on multiple tasks. Simultaneously, we make the following two contributions based on the strengths of ASNs. Namely, we are the first to show the finetuning of Large Language Models (LLM) with DPPLs, employing ASNs to guide the training with logic. Further, we show the "constitutional navigation" of drones, i.e., encoding public aviation laws in an ASN for routing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in uncertain environments.

We study the problem of realizing strategies for an LTLf goal specification while ensuring that at least an LTLf backup specification is satisfied in case of unreliability of certain input variables. We formally define the problem and characterize its worst-case complexity as 2EXPTIME-complete, like standard LTLf synthesis. Then we devise three different solution techniques: one based on direct automata manipulation, which is 2EXPTIME, one disregarding unreliable input variables by adopting a belief construction, which is 3EXPTIME, and one leveraging second-order quantified LTLf (QLTLf), which is 2EXPTIME and allows for a direct encoding into monadic second-order logic, which in turn is worst-case nonelementary. We prove their correctness and evaluate them against each other empirically. Interestingly, theoretical worst-case bounds do not translate into observed performance; the MSO technique performs best, followed by belief construction and direct automata manipulation. As a byproduct of our study, we provide a general synthesis procedure for arbitrary QLTLf specifications.

Formal verification using proof assistants, such as Coq, enables the creation of high-quality software. However, the verification process requires significant expertise and manual effort to write proofs. Recent work has explored automating proof synthesis using machine learning and large language models (LLMs). This work has shown that identifying relevant premises, such as lemmas and definitions, can aid synthesis. We present Rango, a fully automated proof synthesis tool for Coq that automatically identifies relevant premises and also similar proofs from the current project and uses them during synthesis. Rango uses retrieval augmentation at every step of the proof to automatically determine which proofs and premises to include in the context of its fine-tuned LLM. In this way, Rango adapts to the project and to the evolving state of the proof. We create a new dataset, CoqStoq, of 2,226 open-source Coq projects and 196,929 theorems from GitHub, which includes both training data and a curated evaluation benchmark of well-maintained projects. On this benchmark, Rango synthesizes proofs for 32.0% of the theorems, which is 29% more theorems than the prior state-of-the-art tool Tactician. Our evaluation also shows that Rango adding relevant proofs to its context leads to a 47% increase in the number of theorems proven.

Foundation models have vast potential to enable diverse AI applications. The powerful yet incomplete nature of these models has spurred a wide range of mechanisms to augment them with capabilities such as in-context learning, information retrieval, and code interpreting. We propose Vieira, a declarative framework that unifies these mechanisms in a general solution for programming with foundation models. Vieira follows a probabilistic relational paradigm and treats foundation models as stateless functions with relational inputs and outputs. It supports neuro-symbolic applications by enabling the seamless combination of such models with logic programs, as well as complex, multi-modal applications by streamlining the composition of diverse sub-models. We implement Vieira by extending the Scallop compiler with a foreign interface that supports foundation models as plugins. We implement plugins for 12 foundation models including GPT, CLIP, and SAM. We evaluate Vieira on 9 challenging tasks that span language, vision, and structured and vector databases. Our evaluation shows that programs in Vieira are concise, can incorporate modern foundation models, and have comparable or better accuracy than competitive baselines.

Over the last decades, conditional independence was shown to be a crucial concept supporting adequate modelling and efficient reasoning in probabilistics (Pearl, Geiger, and Verma, 1989). It is the fundamental concept underlying network-based reasoning in probabilistics, which has been arguably one of the most important factors in the rise of contemporary artificial intelligence. Even though many reasoning tasks on the basis of probabilistic information have a high worst-case complexity due to their semantic nature, network-based models allow an efficient computation of many concrete instances of these reasoning tasks thanks to local reasoning techniques. Therefore, conditional independence has also been investigated for several approaches in knowledge representation, such as propositional logic (Darwiche, 1997; Lang, Liberatore, and Marquis, 2002), belief revision (Kern-Isberner, Heyninck, and Beierle, 2022; Lynn, Delgrande, and Peppas, 2022) and conditional logics (Heyninck et al., 2023). For many other central formalisms in KR, such a study has not yet been undertaken. Due to the wide variety of formalisms studied in knowledge representation, it is often beneficial yet challenging to study a concept in a language-independent manner. Indeed, such languageindependent studies avoid having to define and investigate the same concept for different formalisms. In recent years, a promising framework for such language-independent investigations is the algebraic approximation fixpoint theory (AFT) Denecker, Marek, and Truszczyński (2003), which conceives of KR-formalisms as operators over a lattice (such as the immediate consequence operator from logic programming).

We introduce a novel language for reasoning about agents' cognitive attitudes of both epistemic and motivational type. We interpret it by means of a computationally grounded semantics using belief bases. Our language includes five types of modal operators for implicit belief, complete attraction, complete repulsion, realistic attraction and realistic repulsion. We give an axiomatization and show that our operators are not mutually expressible and that they can be combined to represent a large variety of psychological concepts including ambivalence, indifference, being motivated, being demotivated and preference. We present a dynamic extension of the language that supports reasoning about the effects of belief change operations. Finally, we provide a succinct formulation of model checking for our languages and a PSPACE model checking algorithm relying on a reduction into TQBF. We present some experimental results for the implemented algorithm on computation time in a concrete example.