Neuro-symbolic (NeSy) AI aims to develop deep neural networks whose predictions comply with prior knowledge encoding, e.g. safety or structural constraints. As such, it represents one of the most promising avenues for reliable and trustworthy AI. The core idea behind NeSy AI is to combine neural and symbolic steps: neural networks are typically responsible for mapping low-level inputs into high-level symbolic concepts, while symbolic reasoning infers predictions compatible with the extracted concepts and the prior knowledge. Despite their promise, it was recently shown that - whenever the concepts are not supervised directly - NeSy models can be affected by Reasoning Shortcuts (RSs). That is, they can achieve high label accuracy by grounding the concepts incorrectly. RSs can compromise the interpretability of the model's explanations, performance in out-of-distribution scenarios, and therefore reliability. At the same time, RSs are difficult to detect and prevent unless concept supervision is available, which is typically not the case. However, the literature on RSs is scattered, making it difficult for researchers and practitioners to understand and tackle this challenging problem. This overview addresses this issue by providing a gentle introduction to RSs, discussing their causes and consequences in intuitive terms. It also reviews and elucidates existing theoretical characterizations of this phenomenon. Finally, it details methods for dealing with RSs, including mitigation and awareness strategies, and maps their benefits and limitations. By reformulating advanced material in a digestible form, this overview aims to provide a unifying perspective on RSs to lower the bar to entry for tackling them. Ultimately, we hope this overview contributes to the development of reliable NeSy and trustworthy AI models.

The paper presents a paradoxical feature of computational systems that suggests that computationalism cannot explain symbol grounding. If the mind is a digital computer, as computationalism claims, then it can be computing either over meaningful symbols or over meaningless symbols. If it is computing over meaningful symbols its functioning presupposes the existence of meaningful symbols in the system, i.e. it implies semantic nativism. If the mind is computing over meaningless symbols, no intentional cognitive processes are available prior to symbol grounding. In this case, no symbol grounding could take place since any grounding presupposes intentional cognitive processes. So, whether computing in the mind is over meaningless or over meaningful symbols, computationalism implies semantic nativism.

Many experts argue that the future of artificial intelligence is limited by the field's ability to integrate symbolic logical reasoning into deep learning architectures. The recently proposed differentiable MAXSAT solver, SATNet, was a breakthrough in its capacity to integrate with a traditional neural network and solve visual reasoning problems. For instance, it can learn the rules of Sudoku purely from image examples. Despite its success, SATNet was shown to succumb to a key challenge in neurosymbolic systems known as the Symbol Grounding Problem: the inability to map visual inputs to symbolic variables without explicit supervision ("label leakage"). In this work, we present a self-supervised pre-training pipeline that enables SATNet to overcome this limitation, thus broadening the class of problems that SATNet architectures can solve to include datasets where no intermediary labels are available at all.

Towards addressing the Symbol Grounding Problem and motivated by early childhood language development, we leverage a robot which has been equipped with an approximate model of curiosity with particular focus on bottom-up building of unsupervised categories grounded in the physical world. That is, rather than starting with a top-down symbol (e.g., a word referring to an object) and providing meaning through the application of predetermined samples, the robot autonomously and gradually breaks up its exploration space into a series of increasingly specific unlabeled categories at which point an external expert may optionally provide a symbol association. We extend prior work by using a robot that can observe the visual world, introducing a higher dimensional sensory space, and using a more generalizable method of category building. Our experiments show that the robot learns categories based on actions and what it visually observes, and that those categories can be symbolically grounded into.https://info.arxiv.org/help/prep#comments

Think your AI understands the meanings of words? Or understands anything at all? Guess again. There's a big issue inherent in trying to make artificial minds that understand like a human does. It's called the Symbol Grounding Problem1S. TLDR: How can understanding in an AI be made intrinsic to the system, rather than just parasitic on the meanings in the minds of the developers / trainers?