Table I presents the quantitative evaluation of ProofNet++ across three distinct datasets. The FPSR (Final Proof Success Rate) metric shows that the system performs best on the mathlib-extract dataset with a 74.9% success rate, followed by miniF2F at 68.4%, and the HOL Light Testbed trailing at 63.5%. Similarly, the PPC (Proof Production Correctness) values align with this trend, indicating higher intermediate proof accuracy on mathlib-extract (88.0%) compared to the other datasets. The EDPT (Edit Distance to Proof Target) metric reveals that mathlib-extract proofs require fewer correction steps (2.4) than miniF2F (3.2) and HOL Light (4.0), suggesting that the system is more efficient in approximating correct proofs in that domain. Latency measurements reflect verifier runtime, with mathlib-extract exhibiting the fastest average verification time (176 ms), whereas HOL Light has the highest latency (214 ms). Lastly, the average proof length varies notably, with HOL Light proofs being the longest (14.3 steps), potentially contributing to its higher latency and lower success metrics. These results indicate that while ProofNet++ demonstrates strong performance on established libraries like mathlib-extract, there is room for improvement on datasets with more complex or longer proofs, such as HOL Light. Enhancements could focus on optimizing proof search strategies and reducing verifier latency, particularly for longer proofs, to improve overall efficiency and success rates. E. Benchmark Pipeline Overview Figure 1 illustrates the full evaluation pipeline used to benchmark ProofNet++, from the initial input prompt to the final corrected proof output.

Despite the practical success of Artificial Intelligence (AI), current neural AI algorithms face two significant issues. First, the decisions made by neural architectures are often prone to bias and brittleness. Second, when a chain of reasoning is required, neural systems often perform poorly. Neuro-symbolic artificial intelligence is a promising approach that tackles these (and other) weaknesses by combining the power of neural perception and symbolic reasoning. Meanwhile, the success of AI has made it critical to understand its behaviour, leading to the development of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). While neuro-symbolic AI systems have important advantages over purely neural AI, we still need to explain their actions, which are obscured by the interactions of the neural and symbolic components. To address the issue, this paper proposes a formal approach to explaining the decisions of neuro-symbolic systems. The approach hinges on the use of formal abductive explanations and on solving the neuro-symbolic explainability problem hierarchically. Namely, it first computes a formal explanation for the symbolic component of the system, which serves to identify a subset of the individual parts of neural information that needs to be explained. This is followed by explaining only those individual neural inputs, independently of each other, which facilitates succinctness of hierarchical formal explanations and helps to increase the overall performance of the approach. Experimental results for a few complex reasoning tasks demonstrate practical efficiency of the proposed approach, in comparison to purely neural systems, from the perspective of explanation size, explanation time, training time, model sizes, and the quality of explanations reported.

The field of neuro-symbolic artificial intelligence (NeSy), which combines learning and reasoning, has recently experienced significant growth. There now are a wide variety of NeSy frameworks, each with its own specific language for expressing background knowledge and how to relate it to neural networks. This heterogeneity hinders accessibility for newcomers and makes comparing different NeSy frameworks challenging. We propose a unified language for NeSy, which we call ULLER, a Unified Language for LEarning and Reasoning. ULLER encompasses a wide variety of settings, while ensuring that knowledge described in it can be used in existing NeSy systems. ULLER has a neuro-symbolic first-order syntax for which we provide example semantics including classical, fuzzy, and probabilistic logics. We believe ULLER is a first step towards making NeSy research more accessible and comparable, paving the way for libraries that streamline training and evaluation across a multitude of semantics, knowledge bases, and NeSy systems.

I have always been fascinated by technology, probably because my father is an engineer. Eventually, I followed in his footsteps and became a computer engineer. I learned a lot about technology from my father. My favorite pastime as a kid was to play on computers with him on the weekends. I'll never forget the time--at just six years of age--when I was walking through a shopping mall and my father showed me a toy robot holding a tray and told me that very soon there will be actual robot helpers in our home working for us.

Neuro-symbolic systems, might recognize items using neural network pattern recognition and then uses symbolic AI reasoning to understand. Neuro-symbolic AI is a combination of neural networks and symbolic AI, which is more efficient than these two alone. It is a novel area of AI research that seeks to combine traditional rules-based AI approaches with modern deep learning techniques. Moreover, like a person, a neuro-symbolic system utilizes logic and language processing to answer the question. Symbolic AI refers to all steps on symbolic human-readable representations of the problem, solved using logic and search.

We are excited to bring Transform 2022 back in-person July 19 and virtually July 20 - August 3. Join AI and data leaders for insightful talks and exciting networking opportunities. Artificial intelligence research has made great achievements in solving specific applications, but we're still far from the kind of general-purpose AI systems that scientists have been dreaming of for decades. Among the solutions being explored to overcome the barriers of AI is the idea of neuro-symbolic systems that bring together the best of different branches of computer science. In a talk at the IBM Neuro-Symbolic AI Workshop, Joshua Tenenbaum, professor of computational cognitive science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explained how neuro-symbolic systems can help to address some of the key problems of current AI systems. Among the many gaps in AI, Tenenbaum is focused on one in particular: "How do we go beyond the idea of intelligence as recognizing patterns in data and approximating functions and more toward the idea of all the things the human mind does when you're modeling the world, explaining and understanding the things you're seeing, imagining things that you can't see but could happen, and making them into goals that you can achieve by planning actions and solving problems?"

This article is part of our coverage of the latest in AI research. Artificial intelligence research has made great achievements in solving specific applications, but we're still far from the kind of general-purpose AI systems that scientists have been dreaming of for decades. Among the solutions being explored to overcome the barriers of AI is the idea of neuro-symbolic systems that bring together the best of different branches of computer science. In a talk at the IBM Neuro-Symbolic AI Workshop, Joshua Tenenbaum, professor of computational cognitive science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explained how neuro-symbolic systems can help to address some of the key problems of current AI systems. Among the many gaps in AI, Tenenbaum is focused on one in particular: "How do we go beyond the idea of intelligence as recognizing patterns in data and approximating functions and more toward the idea of all the things the human mind does when you're modeling the world, explaining and understanding the things you're seeing, imagining things that you can't see but could happen, and making them into goals that you can achieve by planning actions and solving problems?"

This article is part of our coverage of the latest in AI research. Artificial intelligence research has made great achievements in solving specific applications, but we're still far from the kind of general-purpose AI systems that scientists have been dreaming of for decades. Among the solutions being explored to overcome the barriers of AI is the idea of neuro-symbolic systems that bring together the best of different branches of computer science. In a talk at the IBM Neuro-Symbolic AI Workshop, Joshua Tenenbaum, professor of computational cognitive science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explained how neuro-symbolic systems can help to address some of the key problems of current AI systems. Among the many gaps in AI, Tenenbaum is focused on one in particular: "How do we go beyond the idea of intelligence as recognizing patterns in data and approximating functions and more toward the idea of all the things the human mind does when you're modeling the world, explaining and understanding the things you're seeing, imagining things that you can't see but could happen, and making them into goals that you can achieve by planning actions and solving problems?"