Autoformalization involves automatically translating informal math into formal theorems and proofs that are machine-verifiable. Euclidean geometry provides an interesting and controllable domain for studying autoformalization. In this paper, we introduce a neuro-symbolic framework for autoformalizing Euclidean geometry, which combines domain knowledge, SMT solvers, and large language models (LLMs). One challenge in Euclidean geometry is that informal proofs rely on diagrams, leaving gaps in texts that are hard to formalize. To address this issue, we use theorem provers to fill in such diagrammatic information automatically, so that the LLM only needs to autoformalize the explicit textual steps, making it easier for the model. We also provide automatic semantic evaluation for autoformalized theorem statements. We construct LeanEuclid, an autoformalization benchmark consisting of problems from Euclid's Elements and the UniGeo dataset formalized in the Lean proof assistant. Experiments with GPT-4 and GPT-4V show the capability and limitations of state-of-the-art LLMs on autoformalizing geometry problems. The data and code are available at https://github.com/loganrjmurphy/LeanEuclid.

A new family of categorial grammars is proposed, defined by enriching basic categorial grammars with a conjunction operation. It is proved that the formalism obtained in this way has the same expressive power as conjunctive grammars, that is, context-free grammars enhanced with conjunction. It is also shown that categorial grammars with conjunction can be naturally embedded into the Lambek calculus with conjunction and disjunction operations. This further implies that a certain NP-complete set can be defined in the Lambek calculus with conjunction. We also show how to handle some subtle issues connected with the empty string. Finally, we prove that a language generated by a conjunctive grammar can be described by a Lambek grammar with disjunction (but without conjunction).

Learning representations that capture rich semantic relationships and accommodate propositional calculus poses a significant challenge. Existing approaches are either contrastive, lacking theoretical guarantees, or fall short in effectively representing the partial orders inherent to rich visual-semantic hierarchies. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for learning visual representations that not only conform to a specified semantic structure but also facilitate probabilistic propositional reasoning. Our approach is based on a new nuclear norm-based loss. We show that its minimum encodes the spectral geometry of the semantics in a subspace lattice, where logical propositions can be represented by projection operators.

Statistical methods have been widely misused and misinterpreted in various scientific fields, raising significant concerns about the integrity of scientific research. To develop techniques to mitigate this problem, we propose a new method for formally specifying and automatically verifying the correctness of statistical programs. In this method, programmers are reminded to check the requirements for statistical methods by annotating their source code. Then, a software tool called StatWhy automatically checks whether the programmers have properly specified the requirements for the statistical methods. This tool is implemented using the Why3 platform to verify the correctness of OCaml programs for statistical hypothesis testing. We demonstrate how StatWhy can be used to avoid common errors in a variety of popular hypothesis testing programs.

Causal discovery amounts to unearthing causal relationships amongst features in data. It is a crucial companion to causal inference, necessary to build scientific knowledge without resorting to expensive or impossible randomised control trials. In this paper, we explore how reasoning with symbolic representations can support causal discovery. Specifically, we deploy assumption-based argumentation (ABA), a well-established and powerful knowledge representation formalism, in combination with causality theories, to learn graphs which reflect causal dependencies in the data. We prove that our method exhibits desirable properties, notably that, under natural conditions, it can retrieve ground-truth causal graphs. We also conduct experiments with an implementation of our method in answer set programming (ASP) on four datasets from standard benchmarks in causal discovery, showing that our method compares well against established baselines.

We introduce a data-driven approach to computing finite bisimulations for state transition systems with very large, possibly infinite state space. Our novel technique computes stutter-insensitive bisimulations of deterministic systems, which we characterize as the problem of learning a state classifier together with a ranking function for each class. Our procedure learns a candidate state classifier and candidate ranking functions from a finite dataset of sample states; then, it checks whether these generalise to the entire state space using satisfiability modulo theory solving. Upon the affirmative answer, the procedure concludes that the classifier constitutes a valid stutter-insensitive bisimulation of the system. Upon a negative answer, the solver produces a counterexample state for which the classifier violates the claim, adds it to the dataset, and repeats learning and checking in a counterexample-guided inductive synthesis loop until a valid bisimulation is found. We demonstrate on a range of benchmarks from reactive verification and software model checking that our method yields faster verification results than alternative state-of-the-art tools in practice. Our method produces succinct abstractions that enable an effective verification of linear temporal logic without next operator, and are interpretable for system diagnostics.

Most existing computational tools for assumption-based argumentation (ABA) focus on so-called flat frameworks, disregarding the more general case. In this paper, we study an instantiation-based approach for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. We make use of a semantics-preserving translation between ABA and bipolar argumentation frameworks (BAFs). By utilizing compilability theory, we establish that the constructed BAFs will in general be of exponential size. In order to keep the number of arguments and computational cost low, we present three ways of identifying redundant arguments. Moreover, we identify fragments of ABA which admit a poly-sized instantiation. We propose two algorithmic approaches for reasoning in possibly non-flat ABA. The first approach utilizes the BAF instantiation while the second works directly without constructing arguments. An empirical evaluation shows that the former outperforms the latter on many instances, reflecting the lower complexity of BAF reasoning. This result is in contrast to flat ABA, where direct approaches dominate instantiation-based approaches.

The relation between (a fragment of) assumption-based argumentation (ABA) and logic programs (LPs) under stable model semantics is well-studied. However, for obtaining this relation, the ABA framework needs to be restricted to being flat, i.e., a fragment where the (defeasible) assumptions can never be entailed, only assumed to be true or false. Here, we remove this restriction and show a correspondence between non-flat ABA and LPs with negation as failure in their head. We then extend this result to so-called set-stable ABA semantics, originally defined for the fragment of non-flat ABA called bipolar ABA. We showcase how to define set-stable semantics for LPs with negation as failure in their head and show the correspondence to set-stable ABA semantics.

Recent advances in automated theorem proving leverages language models to explore expanded search spaces by step-by-step proof generation. However, such approaches are usually based on short-sighted heuristics (e.g., log probability or value function scores) that potentially lead to suboptimal or even distracting subgoals, preventing us from finding longer proofs. To address this challenge, we propose POETRY (PrOvE Theorems RecursivelY), which proves theorems in a recursive, level-by-level manner in the Isabelle theorem prover. Unlike previous step-by-step methods, POETRY searches for a verifiable sketch of the proof at each level and focuses on solving the current level's theorem or conjecture. Detailed proofs of intermediate conjectures within the sketch are temporarily replaced by a placeholder tactic called sorry, deferring their proofs to subsequent levels. This approach allows the theorem to be tackled incrementally by outlining the overall theorem at the first level and then solving the intermediate conjectures at deeper levels. Experiments are conducted on the miniF2F and PISA datasets and significant performance gains are observed in our POETRY approach over state-of-the-art methods. POETRY on miniF2F achieves an average proving success rate improvement of 5.1%. Moreover, we observe a substantial increase in the maximum proof length found by POETRY, from 10 to 26.

The present paper is devoted to study the effect of connected and disconnected rotations of G\"odel algebras with operators grounded on directly indecomposable structures. The structures resulting from this construction we will present are nilpotent minimum (with or without negation fixpoint, depending on whether the rotation is connected or disconnected) with special modal operators defined on a directly indecomposable algebra. In this paper we will present a (quasi-)equational definition of these latter structures. Our main results show that directly indecomposable nilpotent minimum algebras (with or without negation fixpoint) with modal operators are fully characterized as connected and disconnected rotations of directly indecomposable G\"odel algebras endowed with modal operators.