Program synthesis aims to automatically generate an executable program that conforms to the given specification. Recent advancements have demonstrated that deep neural methodologies and large-scale pretrained language models are highly proficient in capturing program semantics. For robot programming, prior works have facilitated program synthesis by incorporating global environments. However, the assumption of acquiring a comprehensive understanding of the entire environment is often excessively challenging to achieve.

One reason for this is the intractability of analyzing NNs, ODEs and hybrid systems.

In pioneering work from 2019, Barceló and coauthors identified logics that precisely match the expressive power of constant iteration-depth graph neural networks (GNNs) relative to properties definable in first-order logic. In this article, we give exact logical characterizations of recurrent GNNs in two scenarios: (1) in the setting with floating-point numbers and (2) with reals. For floats, the formalism matching recurrent GNNs is a rule-based modal logic with counting, while for reals we use a suitable infinitary modal logic, also with counting. These results give exact matches between logics and GNNs in the recurrent setting without relativising to a background logic in either case, but using some natural assumptions about floating-point arithmetic. Applying our characterizations, we also prove that, relative to graph properties definable in monadic second-order logic (MSO), our infinitary and rule-based logics are equally expressive. This implies that recurrent GNNs with reals and floats have the same expressive power over MSO-definable properties and shows that, for such properties, also recurrent GNNs with reals are characterized by a (finitary!)

Autoformalization, the task of automatically translating natural language descriptions into a formal language, poses a significant challenge across various domains, especially in mathematics. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have unveiled their promising capabilities to formalize even competition-level math problems. However, we observe a considerable discrepancy between pass@1 and pass@k accuracies in LLM-generated formalizations. To address this gap, we introduce a novel framework that scores and selects the best result from k autoformalization candidates based on two complementary self-consistency methods: symbolic equivalence and semantic consistency. Elaborately, symbolic equivalence identifies the logical homogeneity among autoformalization candidates using automated theorem provers, and semantic consistency evaluates the preservation of the original meaning by informalizing the candidates and computing the similarity between the embeddings of the original and informalized texts. Our extensive experiments on the MATH and miniF2F datasets demonstrate that our approach significantly enhances autoformalization accuracy, achieving up to 0.22-1.35x

Autoformalization is the process of automatically translating from natural language mathematics to formal specifications and proofs. A successful autoformalization system could advance the fields of formal verification, program synthesis, and artificial intelligence.While the long-term goal of autoformalization seemed elusive for a long time, we show large language models provide new prospects towards this goal. We make the surprising observation that LLMs can correctly translate a significant portion ($25.3\%$) of mathematical competition problems perfectly to formal specifications in Isabelle/HOL. We demonstrate the usefulness of this process by improving a previously introduced neural theorem prover via training on these autoformalized theorems.

We consider the problem of answering queries about formulas of first-order logic based on background knowledge partially represented explicitly as other formulas, and partially represented as examples independently drawn from a fixed probability distribution. PAC semantics, introduced by Valiant, is one rigorous, general proposal for learning to reason in formal languages: although weaker than classical entailment, it allows for a powerful model theoretic framework for answering queries while requiring minimal assumptions about the form of the distribution in question. To date, however, the most significant limitation of that approach, and more generally most machine learning approaches with robustness guarantees, is that the logical language is ultimately essentially propositional, with finitely many atoms. Indeed, the theoretical findings on the learning of relational theories in such generality have been resoundingly negative. This is despite the fact that first-order logic is widely argued to be most appropriate for representing human knowledge. In this work, we present a new theoretical approach to robustly learning to reason in first-order logic, and consider universally quantified clauses over a countably infinite domain. Our results exploit symmetries exhibited by constants in the language, and generalize the notion of implicit learnability to show how queries can be computed against (implicitly) learned first-order background knowledge.

We consider the task of automated theorem proving, a key AI task. Deep learning has shown promise for training theorem provers, but there are limited human-written theorems and proofs available for supervised learning. To address this limitation, we propose to learn a neural generator that automatically synthesizes theorems and proofs for the purpose of training a theorem prover. Experiments on real-world tasks demonstrate that synthetic data from our approach improves the theorem prover and advances the state of the art of automated theorem proving in Metamath.

Despite achieving superior performance in human-level control problems, unlike humans, deep reinforcement learning (DRL) lacks high-order intelligence (e.g., logic deduction and reuse), thus it behaves ineffectively than humans regarding learning and generalization in complex problems. Previous works attempt to directly synthesize a white-box logic program as the DRL policy, manifesting logic-driven behaviors. However, most synthesis methods are built on imperative or declarative programming, and each has a distinct limitation, respectively. The former ignores the cause-effect logic during synthesis, resulting in low generalizability across tasks. The latter is strictly proof-based, thus failing to synthesize programs with complex hierarchical logic. In this paper, we combine the above two paradigms together and propose a novel Generalizable Logic Synthesis (GALOIS) framework to synthesize hierarchical and strict cause-effect logic programs. GALOIS leverages the program sketch and defines a new sketch-based hybrid program language for guiding the synthesis. Based on that, GALOIS proposes a sketch-based program synthesis method to automatically generate white-box programs with generalizable and interpretable cause-effect logic. Extensive evaluations on various decision-making tasks with complex logic demonstrate the superiority of GALOIS over mainstream baselines regarding the asymptotic performance, generalizability, and great knowledge reusability across different environments.

Besides standard latent subsymbolic variables, our model exploits a probabilistic logic program to define a further structured representation, which is used for logical reasoning. The entire process is end-to-end differentiable. Once trained, VAEL can solve new unseen generation tasks by (i) leveraging the previously acquired knowledge encoded in the neural component and (ii) exploiting new logical programs on the structured latent space. Our experiments provide support on the benefits of this neuro-symbolic integration both in terms of task generalization and data efficiency. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to propose a general-purpose end-to-end framework integrating probabilistic logic programming into a deep generative model.