Large Language Models (LLMs) are primarily trained on high-resource natural languages, limiting their effectiveness in low-resource settings and in tasks requiring deep logical reasoning. This research introduces Rosetta-PL, a benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' logical reasoning and generalization capabilities in a controlled environment. We construct Rosetta-PL by translating a dataset of logical propositions from Lean into a custom logical language, which is then used to fine-tune an LLM (e.g., GPT-4o). Our experiments analyze the impact of the size of the dataset and the translation methodology on the performance of the model. Our results indicate that preserving logical relationships in the translation process significantly boosts precision, with accuracy plateauing beyond roughly 20,000 training samples. These insights provide valuable guidelines for optimizing LLM training in formal reasoning tasks and improving performance in various low-resource language applications.

Incidence Calculus and Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence are both theories to describe agents' degrees of belief in propositions, thus being appropriate to represent uncertainty in reasoning systems. This paper presents a straightforward equivalence proof between some special cases of these theories.

This paper is concerned with a class of algorithms that perform exhaustive search on propositional knowledge bases. We show that each of these algorithms defines and generates a propositional language. Specifically, we show that the trace of a search can be interpreted as a combinational circuit, and a search algorithm then defines a propositional language consisting of circuits that are generated across all possible executions of the algorithm. In particular, we show that several versions of exhaustive DPLL search correspond to such well-known languages as FBDD, OBDD, and a precisely-defined subset of d-DNNF. By thus mapping search algorithms to propositional languages, we provide a uniform and practical framework in which successful search techniques can be harnessed for compilation of knowledge into various languages of interest, and a new methodology whereby the power and limitations of search algorithms can be understood by looking up the tractability and succinctness of the corresponding propositional languages.

Finally, explore possible methods for decision making in general, have received a lot uses of combinatorial aggregation in sequential voting, of attention in the AI community in recent years. The reasons and discuss theoretical generalisations to more complex logical for this focus are clear: SCT provides tools for the analysis of languages and practical applications. Particularly close to the interests of AI is the to study binary aggregation procedures, inspired by research problem of social choice in combinatorial domains (Chevaleyre in AI. As long as we do not know the intended application of et al., 2008), where the space of alternatives the individuals the model, there is no appropriate set of axioms to concentrate have to choose from has a combinatorial structure. Instead, we prove characterisation results concerning one Definition 1.

This paper is concerned with a class of algorithms that perform exhaustive search on propositional knowledge bases. We show that each of these algorithms defines and generates a propositional language. Specifically, we show that the trace of a search can be interpreted as a combinational circuit, and a search algorithm then defines a propositional language consisting of circuits that are generated across all possible executions of the algorithm. In particular, we show that several versions of exhaustive DPLL search correspond to such well-known languages as FBDD, OBDD, and a precisely-defined subset of d-DNNF. By thus mapping search algorithms to propositional languages, we provide a uniform and practical framework in which successful search techniques can be harnessed for compilation of knowledge into various languages of interest, and a new methodology whereby the power and limitations of search algorithms can be understood by looking up the tractability and succinctness of the corresponding propositional languages.