Probabilistic programming is becoming increasingly popular thanks to its ability to specify problems with a certain degree of uncertainty. In this work, we focus on term rewriting, a well-known computational formalism. In particular, we consider systems that combine traditional rewriting rules with probabilities. Then, we define a distribution semantics for such systems that can be used to model the probability of reducing a term to some value. We also show how to compute a set of "explanations" for a given reduction, which can be used to compute its probability. Finally, we illustrate our approach with several examples and outline a couple of extensions that may prove useful to improve the expressive power of probabilistic rewrite systems.

Math is constructed by people for people: just as natural language corpora reflect not just propositions but the communicative goals of language users, the math data that models are trained on reflects not just idealized mathematical entities but rich communicative intentions. While there are important advantages to treating math in a purely symbolic manner, we here hypothesize that there are complementary benefits to treating math as situated linguistic communication and that language models are well suited for this goal, in ways that are not fully appreciated. We illustrate these points with two case studies. First, we ran an experiment in which we found that language models interpret the equals sign in a humanlike way--generating systematically different word problems for the same underlying equation arranged in different ways. Second, we found that language models prefer proofs to be ordered in naturalistic ways, even though other orders would be logically equivalent. We advocate for AI systems that learn from and represent the communicative intentions latent in human-generated math. Mathematical propositions are first of all English sentences; not only English sentences, but each mathematical proposition has a resemblance to certain non-mathematical propositions.

Goal-conditioned reinforcement learning is a powerful way to control an AI agent's behavior at runtime. That said, popular goal representations, e.g., target states or natural language, are either limited to Markovian tasks or rely on ambiguous task semantics. We propose representing temporal goals using compositions of deterministic finite automata (cDFAs) and use cDFAs to guide RL agents. cDFAs balance the need for formal temporal semantics with ease of interpretation: if one can understand a flow chart, one can understand a cDFA. On the other hand, cDFAs form a countably infinite concept class with Boolean semantics, and subtle changes to the automaton can result in very different tasks, making them difficult to condition agent behavior on. To address this, we observe that all paths through a DFA correspond to a series of reach-avoid tasks and propose pre-training graph neural network embeddings on "reach-avoid derived" DFAs. Through empirical evaluation, we demonstrate that the proposed pre-training method enables zero-shot generalization to various cDFA task classes and accelerated policy specialization without the myopic suboptimality of hierarchical methods.

In this paper, we present an innovative iterative approach to rule learning specifically designed for (but not limited to) text-based data. Our method focuses on progressively expanding the vocabulary utilized in each iteration resulting in a significant reduction of memory consumption. Moreover, we introduce a Value of Confidence as an indicator of the reliability of the generated rules. By leveraging the Value of Confidence, our approach ensures that only the most robust and trustworthy rules are retained, thereby improving the overall quality of the rule learning process. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method through extensive experiments on various textual as well as non-textual datasets including a use case of significant interest to insurance industries, showcasing its potential for real-world applications.

Current trends in Machine Learning prefer explainability even when it comes at the cost of performance. Therefore, explainable AI methods are particularly important in the field of Fraud Detection. This work investigates the applicability of Differentiable Inductive Logic Programming (DILP) as an explainable AI approach to Fraud Detection. Although the scalability of DILP is a well-known issue, we show that with some data curation such as cleaning and adjusting the tabular and numerical data to the expected format of background facts statements, it becomes much more applicable. While in processing it does not provide any significant advantage on rather more traditional methods such as Decision Trees, or more recent ones like Deep Symbolic Classification, it still gives comparable results. We showcase its limitations and points to improve, as well as potential use cases where it can be much more useful compared to traditional methods, such as recursive rule learning.

The Boolean Nearest Neighbor (BNN) representation of Boolean functions was recently introduced by Hajnal, Liu and Turan. A BNN representation of $f$ is a pair $(P,N)$ of sets of Boolean vectors (called positive and negative prototypes) where $f(x)=1$ for every positive prototype $x \in P$, $f(x)=0$ for all every negative prototype $x \in N$, and the value $f(x)$ for $x \not\in P \cup N$ is determined by the type of the closest prototype. The main aim of this paper is to determine the position of the BNN language in the Knowledge Compilation Map (KCM). To this end, we derive results which compare the succinctness of the BNN language to several standard languages from KCM, and determine the complexity status of most standard queries and transformations for BNN inputs.

Formal verification using proof assistants, such as Coq, is an effective way of improving software quality, but it is expensive. Writing proofs manually requires both significant effort and expertise. Recent research has used machine learning to automatically synthesize proofs, reducing verification effort, but these tools are able to prove only a fraction of the desired software properties. We introduce Cobblestone, a new proof-synthesis approach that improves on the state of the art by taking advantage of partial progress in proof synthesis attempts. Unlike prior tools, Cobblestone can produce multiple unsuccessful proofs using a large language model (LLM), identify the working portions of those proofs, and combine them into a single, successful proof, taking advantage of internal partial progress. We evaluate Cobblestone on two benchmarks of open-source Coq projects, controlling for training data leakage in LLM datasets. Fully automatically, Cobblestone can prove 48% of the theorems, while Proverbot9001, the previous state-of-the-art, learning-based, proof-synthesis tool, can prove 17%. Cobblestone establishes a new state of the art for fully automated proof synthesis tools for Coq. We also evaluate Cobblestone in a setting where it is given external partial proof progress from oracles, serving as proxies for a human proof engineer or another tool. When the theorem is broken down into a set of subgoals and Cobblestone is given a set of relevant lemmas already proven in the project, it can prove up to 58% of the theorems. We qualitatively study the theorems Cobblestone is and is not able to prove to outline potential future research directions to further improve proof synthesis, including developing interactive, semi-automated tools. Our research shows that tools can make better use of partial progress made during proof synthesis to more effectively automate formal verification.

The design of Systems on Chips (SoCs) is becoming more and more complex due to technological advancements. Missed bugs can cause drastic failures in safety-critical environments leading to the endangerment of lives. To overcome these drastic failures, formal property verification (FPV) has been applied in the industry. However, there exist multiple hardware designs where the results of FPV are not conclusive even for long runtimes of model-checking tools. For this reason, the use of High-level Equivalence Checking (HLEC) tools has been proposed in the last few years. However, the procedure for how to use it inside an industrial toolchain has not been defined. For this reason, we proposed an automated methodology based on metamodeling techniques which consist of two main steps. First, an untimed algorithmic description written in C++ is verified in an early stage using generated assertions; the advantage of this step is that the assertions at the software level run in seconds and we can start our analysis with conclusive results about our algorithm before starting to write the RTL (Register Transfer Level) design. Second, this algorithmic description is verified against its sequential design using HLEC and the respective metamodel parameters. The results show that the presented methodology can find bugs early related to the algorithmic description and prepare the setup for the HLEC verification. This helps to reduce the verification efforts to set up the tool and write the properties manually which is always error-prone. The proposed framework can help teams working on datapaths to verify and make decisions in an early stage of the verification flow.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, yet they struggle with inconsistent reasoning, particularly in novel domains and complex logical sequences. This research introduces Proof of Thought, a framework that enhances the reliability and transparency of LLM outputs. Our approach bridges LLM-generated ideas with formal logic verification, employing a custom interpreter to convert LLM outputs into First Order Logic constructs for theorem prover scrutiny. Central to our method is an intermediary JSON-based Domain-Specific Language, which by design balances precise logical structures with intuitive human concepts. This hybrid representation enables both rigorous validation and accessible human comprehension of LLM reasoning processes. Key contributions include a robust type system with sort management for enhanced logical integrity, explicit representation of rules for clear distinction between factual and inferential knowledge, and a flexible architecture that allows for easy extension to various domain-specific applications. We demonstrate Proof of Thought's effectiveness through benchmarking on StrategyQA and a novel multimodal reasoning task, showing improved performance in open-ended scenarios. By providing verifiable and interpretable results, our technique addresses critical needs for AI system accountability and sets a foundation for human-in-the-loop oversight in high-stakes domains.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools in mathematical theorem proving, particularly when utilizing formal languages such as LEAN. The major learning paradigm is expert iteration, which necessitates a pre-defined dataset comprising numerous mathematical problems. In this process, LLMs attempt to prove problems within the dataset and iteratively refine their capabilities through self-training on the proofs they discover. We propose to use large scale LEAN problem datasets Lean-workbook for expert iteration with more than 20,000 CPU days. During expert iteration, we found log-linear trends between solved problem amount with proof length and CPU usage. We train a critic model to select relatively easy problems for policy models to make trials and guide the model to search for deeper proofs. InternLM2.5-StepProver achieves open-source state-of-the-art on MiniF2F, Lean-Workbook-Plus, ProofNet, and Putnam benchmarks. Specifically, it achieves a pass of 65.9% on the MiniF2F-test and proves (or disproves) 17.0% of problems in Lean-Workbook-Plus which shows a significant improvement compared to only 9.5% of problems proved when Lean-Workbook-Plus was released. We open-source our models and searched proofs at https://github.com/InternLM/InternLM-Math and https://huggingface.co/datasets/internlm/Lean-Workbook.