Pre-training is crucial in 3D-related fields such as autonomous driving where point cloud annotation is costly and challenging. Many recent studies on point cloud pre-training, however, have overlooked the issue of incompleteness, where only a fraction of the points are captured by LiDAR, leading to ambiguity during the training phase. On the other hand, images offer more comprehensive information and richer semantics that can bolster point cloud encoders in addressing the incompleteness issue inherent in point clouds. Yet, incorporating images into point cloud pre-training presents its own challenges due to occlusions, potentially causing misalignments between points and pixels. In this work, we propose PRED, a novel image-assisted pre-training framework for outdoor point clouds in an occlusion-aware manner. The main ingredient of our framework is a Birds-Eye-View (BEV) feature map conditioned semantic rendering, leveraging the semantics of images for supervision through neural rendering. We further enhance our model's performance by incorporating point-wise masking with a high mask ratio (95%). Extensive experiments demonstrate PRED's superiority over prior point cloud pre-training methods, providing significant improvements on various large-scale datasets for 3D perception tasks. Codes will be available at https://github.com/PRED4pc/PRED.

This paper synthesizes a series of formal proofs to construct a unified theory on the logical limits of the Symbol Grounding Problem. We distinguish between internal meaning (sense), which formal systems can possess via axioms, and external grounding (reference), which is a necessary condition for connecting symbols to the world. We demonstrate through a four-stage argument that meaningful grounding within a formal system must arise from a process that is external, dynamic, and non-fixed algorithmic. First, we show that for a purely symbolic system, the impossibility of grounding is a direct consequence of its definition. Second, we extend this limitation to systems with any finite, static set of pre-established meanings (Semantic Axioms). By formally modeling the computationalist hypothesis-which equates grounding with internal derivation-we prove via Gödelian arguments that such systems cannot consistently and completely define a "groundability predicate" for all truths. Third, we demonstrate that the "grounding act" for emergent meanings cannot be inferred from internal rules but requires an axiomatic, meta-level update. Drawing on Turing's concept of Oracle Machines and Piccinini's analysis of the mathematical objection, we identify this update as physical transduction. Finally, we prove that this process cannot be simulated by a fixed judgment algorithm, validating the logical necessity of embodied interaction.

Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) aims to improve factual accuracy by leveraging structured knowledge. However, real-world Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are often incomplete, leading to the problem of Incomplete KGQA (IKGQA). A common solution is to incorporate external data to fill knowledge gaps, but existing methods lack the capacity to adaptively and contextually fuse multiple sources, failing to fully exploit their complementary strengths. To this end, we propose Debate over Mixed-knowledge (DoM), a novel framework that enables dynamic integration of structured and unstructured knowledge for IKGQA. Built upon the Multi-Agent Debate paradigm, DoM assigns specialized agents to perform inference over knowledge graphs and external texts separately, and coordinates their outputs through iterative interaction. It decomposes the input question into sub-questions, retrieves evidence via dual agents (KG and Retrieval-Augmented Generation, RAG), and employs a judge agent to evaluate and aggregate intermediate answers. This collaboration exploits knowledge complementarity and enhances robustness to KG incompleteness. In addition, existing IKGQA datasets simulate incompleteness by randomly removing triples, failing to capture the irregular and unpredictable nature of real-world knowledge incompleteness. To address this, we introduce a new dataset, Incomplete Knowledge Graph WebQuestions, constructed by leveraging real-world knowledge updates. These updates reflect knowledge beyond the static scope of KGs, yielding a more realistic and challenging benchmark. Through extensive experiments, we show that DoM consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines.

With both neural and symbolic reasoning results contained, ENeSy answers queries in ensembles.

Most current planners assume complete domain models and focus on generating correct plans. Unfortunately, domain modeling is a laborious and error-prone task, thus real world agents have to plan with incomplete domain models. While domain experts cannot guarantee completeness, often they are able to circumscribe the incompleteness of the model by providing annotations as to which parts of the domain model may be incomplete. In such cases, the goal should be to synthesize plans that are robust with respect to any known incompleteness of the domain. In this paper, we first introduce annotations expressing the knowledge of the domain incompleteness and formalize the notion of plan robustness with respect to an incomplete domain model.

Knowledge Graph based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (KG-RAG) is a technique that enhances Large Language Model (LLM) inference in tasks like Question Answering (QA) by retrieving relevant information from knowledge graphs (KGs). However, real-world KGs are often incomplete, meaning that essential information for answering questions may be missing. Existing benchmarks do not adequately capture the impact of KG incompleteness on KG-RAG performance. In this paper, we systematically evaluate KG-RAG methods under incomplete KGs by removing triples using different methods and analyzing the resulting effects. We demonstrate that KG-RAG methods are sensitive to KG incompleteness, highlighting the need for more robust approaches in realistic settings.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable problem-solving abilities in mathematics, as evaluated by existing benchmarks exclusively on well-defined problems. However, such evaluation setup constitutes a critical gap, since a genuine intelligent agent should not only solve problems (as a math quiz solver), but also be able~to ask for information when the problems lack sufficient information, enabling proactivity in responding users' requests. To bridge such gap, we proposes a new dataset consisting of two types of incomplete problems with diverse contexts. Based on the dataset, our systematical evaluation of LRMs reveals their inability in proactively asking for information. In addition, we uncover the behaviors related to overthinking and hallucination of LRMs, and highlight the potential and challenges of supervised fine-tuning in learning such ability. We hope to provide new insights in developing LRMs with genuine intelligence, rather than just solving problems.

This paper outlines a general formal framework for reasoning systems, intended to support future analysis of inference architectures across domains. We model reasoning systems as structured tuples comprising phenomena, explanation space, inference and generation maps, and a principle base. The formulation accommodates logical, algorithmic, and learning-based reasoning processes within a unified structural schema, while remaining agnostic to any specific reasoning algorithm or logic system. We survey basic internal criteria--including coherence, soundness, and completeness-and catalog typical failure modes such as contradiction, incompleteness, and non-convergence. The framework also admits dynamic behaviors like iterative refinement and principle evolution. The goal of this work is to establish a foundational structure for representing and comparing reasoning systems, particularly in contexts where internal failure, adaptation, or fragmentation may arise. No specific solution architecture is proposed; instead, we aim to support future theoretical and practical investigations into reasoning under structural constraint.

The capability to store data about business processes execution in so-called Event Logs has brought to the diffusion of tools for the analysis of process executions and for the assessment of the goodness of a process model. Nonetheless, these tools are often very rigid in dealing with with Event Logs that include incomplete information about the process execution. Thus, while the ability of handling incomplete event data is one of the challenges mentioned in the process mining manifesto, the evaluation of compliance of an execution trace still requires an end-to-end complete trace to be performed. This paper exploits the power of abduction to provide a flexible, yet computationally effective, framework to deal with different forms of incompleteness in an Event Log. Moreover it proposes a refinement of the classical notion of compliance into strong and conditional compliance to take into account incomplete logs. Finally, performances evaluation in an experimental setting shows the feasibility of the presented approach.