The deployment of pre-trained perception models in novel environments often leads to performance degradation due to distributional shifts. Although recent artificial intelligence approaches for metacognition use logical rules to characterize and filter model errors, improving precision often comes at the cost of reduced recall. This paper addresses the hypothesis that leveraging multiple pre-trained models can mitigate this recall reduction. We formulate the challenge of identifying and managing conflicting predictions from various models as a consistency-based abduction problem, building on the idea of abductive learning (ABL) but applying it to test-time instead of training. The input predictions and the learned error detection rules derived from each model are encoded in a logic program. We then seek an abductive explanation--a subset of model predictions--that maximizes prediction coverage while ensuring the rate of logical inconsistencies (derived from domain constraints) remains below a specified threshold. We propose two algorithms for this knowledge representation task: an exact method based on Integer Programming (IP) and an efficient Heuristic Search (HS). Through extensive experiments on a simulated aerial imagery dataset featuring controlled, complex distributional shifts, we demonstrate that our abduction-based framework outperforms individual models and standard ensemble baselines, achieving, for instance, average relative improvements of approximately 13.6\% in F1-score and 16.6\% in accuracy across 15 diverse test datasets when compared to the best individual model. Our results validate the use of consistency-based abduction as an effective mechanism to robustly integrate knowledge from multiple imperfect models in challenging, novel scenarios.

The entire process is end-to-end differentiable.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a powerful new language of science as evidenced by recent Nobel Prizes in chemistry and physics that recognized contributions to AI applied to those areas. Yet, this new language lacks semantics, which makes AI's scientific discoveries unsatisfactory at best. With the purpose of uncovering new facts but also improving our understanding of the world, AI-based science requires formalization through a framework capable of translating insight into comprehensible scientific knowledge. In this paper, we argue that logic offers an adequate framework. In particular, we use logic in a neurosymbolic framework to offer a much needed semantics for deep learning, the neural network-based technology of current AI. Deep learning and neurosymbolic AI lack a general set of conditions to ensure that desirable properties are satisfied. Instead, there is a plethora of encoding and knowledge extraction approaches designed for particular cases. To rectify this, we introduced a framework for semantic encoding, making explicit the mapping between neural networks and logic, and characterizing the common ingredients of the various existing approaches. In this paper, we describe succinctly and exemplify how logical semantics and neural networks are linked through this framework, we review some of the most prominent approaches and techniques developed for neural encoding and knowledge extraction, provide a formal definition of our framework, and discuss some of the difficulties of identifying a semantic encoding in practice in light of analogous problems in the philosophy of mind.

According to the United States Internal Revenue Service, "the average American spends $270 and 13 hours filing their taxes". Even beyond the U.S., tax filing requires complex reasoning, combining application of overlapping rules with numerical calculations. Because errors can incur costly penalties, any automated system must deliver high accuracy and auditability, making modern large language models (LLMs) poorly suited for this task. We propose an approach that integrates LLMs with a symbolic solver to calculate tax obligations. We evaluate variants of this system on the challenging StAtutory Reasoning Assessment (SARA) dataset, and include a novel method for estimating the cost of deploying such a system based on real-world penalties for tax errors. We further show how combining up-front translation of plain-text rules into formal logic programs, combined with intelligently retrieved exemplars for formal case representations, can dramatically improve performance on this task and reduce costs to well below real-world averages. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of applying semantic parsing methods to statutory reasoning, and show promising economic feasibility of neuro-symbolic architectures for increasing access to reliable tax assistance. Code is available at https://github.com/wjurayj/legal

Answer Set Programming (ASP) provides a powerful declarative paradigm for knowledge representation and reasoning. Recently, counting answer sets has emerged as an important computational problem with applications in probabilistic reasoning, network reliability analysis, and other domains. This has motivated significant research into designing efficient ASP counters. While substantial progress has been made for normal logic programs, the development of practical counters for disjunctive logic programs remains challenging. We present SharpASP-SR, a novel framework for counting answer sets of disjunctive logic programs based on subtractive reduction to projected propositional model counting. Our approach introduces an alternative characterization of answer sets that enables efficient reduction while ensuring that intermediate representations remain of polynomial size. This allows SharpASP-SR to leverage recent advances in projected model counting technology. Through extensive experimental evaluation on diverse benchmarks, we demonstrate that SharpASP-SR significantly outperforms existing counters on instances with large answer set counts. Building on these results, we develop a hybrid counting approach that combines enumeration techniques with SharpASP-SR to achieve state-of-the-art performance across the full spectrum of disjunctive programs.

Logic programming (LP) is typically understood through operational semantics (e.g., SLD-resolution) or model-theoretic interpretations (e.g., the least Herbrand model). This paper introduces a novel perspective on LP by defining a ``support'' relation that explicates what a program ``knows''. This interpretation is shown to express classical and intuitionistic logic, as well as an intermediate logic, depending on certain choices regarding LP and the meanings of disjunction and negation. These results are formalized using the idea of base-extension semantics within proof-theoretic semantics. Our approach offers new insights into the logical foundations of LP and has potential applications in knowledge representation, automated reasoning, and formal verification.

Legal services rely heavily on text processing. While large language models (LLMs) show promise, their application in legal contexts demands higher accuracy, repeatability, and transparency. Logic programs, by encoding legal concepts as structured rules and facts, offer reliable automation, but require sophisticated text extraction. We propose a neuro-symbolic approach that integrates LLMs' natural language understanding with logic-based reasoning to address these limitations. As a legal document case study, we applied neuro-symbolic AI to coverage-related queries in insurance contracts using both closed and open-source LLMs. While LLMs have improved in legal reasoning, they still lack the accuracy and consistency required for complex contract analysis. In our analysis, we tested three methodologies to evaluate whether a specific claim is covered under a contract: a vanilla LLM, an unguided approach that leverages LLMs to encode both the contract and the claim, and a guided approach that uses a framework for the LLM to encode the contract. We demonstrated the promising capabilities of LLM + Logic in the guided approach.

Bad actors in the maritime industry engage in illegal behaviors after disabling their vessel's automatic identification system (AIS) - which makes finding such vessels difficult for analysts. Machine learning approaches only succeed in identifying the locations of these ``dark vessels'' in the immediate future. This work leverages ideas from the literature on abductive inference applied to locating adversarial agents to solve the problem. Specifically, we combine concepts from abduction, logic programming, and rule learning to create an efficient method that approaches full recall of dark vessels while requiring less search area than machine learning methods. We provide a logic-based paradigm for reasoning about maritime vessels, an abductive inference query method, an automatically extracted rule-based behavior model methodology, and a thorough suite of experiments.

Still, if you can do some version of the Mayan hieroglyphics, or work that example into the introduction, it would improve the paper even more. They restrict themselves to classification problems, i.e., a mapping from perceptual input to {0,1}; the discrete symbols output by the perception model act as latent variables sitting in between the input and the binary decision. Their approach is to alternate between (1) inferring a logic program consistent with the training examples, conditioned on the output of the perception model, and (2) training the perception model to predict the latent discrete symbols. Because the perception model may be unreliable, particularly early on in training, the logic program is allowed to revise or abduce the outputs of perception. The problem they pose -- integrating learned perception with learned symbolic reasoning -- is eminently important.