Deep learning has been shown to achieve impressive results in several domains like computer vision and natural language processing. Deep architectures are typically trained following a supervised scheme and, therefore, they rely on the availability of a large amount of labeled training data to effectively learn their parameters. Neuro-symbolic approaches have recently gained popularity to inject prior knowledge into a deep learner without requiring it to induce this knowledge from data. These approaches can potentially learn competitive solutions with a significant reduction of the amount of supervised data. A large class of neuro-symbolic approaches is based on First-Order Logic to represent prior knowledge, that is relaxed to a differentiable form using fuzzy logic. This paper shows that the loss function expressing these neuro-symbolic learning tasks can be unambiguously determined given the selection of a t-norm generator. When restricted to simple supervised learning, the presented theoretical apparatus provides a clean justification to the popular cross-entropy loss, that has been shown to provide faster convergence and to reduce the vanishing gradient problem in very deep structures. One advantage of the proposed learning formulation is that it can be extended to all the knowledge that can be represented by a neuro-symbolic method, and it allows the development of a novel class of loss functions, that the experimental results show to lead to faster convergence rates than other approaches previously proposed in the literature.
From a learning point of view, different quantifier conversions can be taken into account and validated, as well. For instance, the arithmetic mean and maximum operator have been used to convert the universal and existential quantifiers in @cite_28 , respectively. Different possibilities have been considered for the universal quantifier in @cite_14 , while the existential quantifier depends on this choice via the application of the strong negation using the DeMorgan law. The Arithmetic mean operator has been shown to achieve better performances in the conversion of the universal quantifier @cite_14 , with the existential quantifier implemented by Skolemization. However, the universal and existential quantifiers can be thought of as a generalized AND and OR, respectively. Therefore, converting the quantifiers using a mean operator has no direct justification inside a logic theory.
@cite_28 @cite_14
1511737804 2175917793 2003531456 1515930456
Motivated by applications to program verification, we study a decision procedure for satisfiability in an expressive fragment of a theory of arrays, which is parameterized by the theories of the array elements. The decision procedure reduces satisfiability of a formula of the fragment to satisfiability of an equisatisfiable quantifier-free formula in the combined theory of equality with uninterpreted functions (EUF), Presburger arithmetic, and the element theories. This fragment allows a constrained use of universal quantification, so that one quantifier alternation is allowed, with some syntactic restrictions. It allows expressing, for example, that an assertion holds for all elements in a given index range, that two arrays are equal in a given range, or that an array is sorted. We demonstrate its expressiveness through applications to verification of sorting algorithms and parameterized systems. We also prove that satisfiability is undecidable for several natural extensions to the fragment. Finally, we describe our implementation in the πVC verifying compiler. Many real-world knowledge-based systems must deal with information coming from different sources that invariably leads to incompleteness, overspecification, or inherently uncertain content. The presence of these varying levels of uncertainty doesn't mean that the information is worthless --- rather, these are hurdles that the knowledge engineer must learn to work with. In this paper, we continue work on an argumentation-based framework that extends the well-known Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) language with probabilistic uncertainty, giving rise to the Defeasible Logic Programming with Presumptions and Probabilistic Environments (DeLP3E) model. Our prior work focused on the problem of belief revision in DeLP3E, where we proposed a non-prioritized class of revision operators called AFO (Annotation Function-based Operators) to solve this problem. In this paper, we further study this class and argue that in some cases it may be desirable to define revision operators that take quantitative aspects into account, such as how the probabilities of certain literals or formulas of interest change after the revision takes place. To the best of our knowledge, this problem has not been addressed in the argumentation literature to date. We propose the QAFO (Quantitative Annotation Function-based Operators) class of operators, a subclass of AFO, and then go on to study the complexity of several problems related to their specification and application in revising knowledge bases. Finally, we present an algorithm for computing the probability that a literal is warranted in a DeLP3E knowledge base, and discuss how it could be applied towards implementing QAFO-style operators that compute approximations rather than exact operations. The use of conventional classical logic is misleading for characterizing the behavior of logic programs because a logic program, when queried, will do one of three things: succeed with the query, fail with it, or not respond because it has fallen into infinite backtracking. In [7] Kleene proposed a three-valued logic for use in recursive function theory. The so-called third truth value was really undefined: truth value not determined. This logic is a useful tool in logic-program specification, and in particular, for describing models. (See [11].) Tarski showed that formal languages, like arithmetic, cannot contain their own truth predicate because one could then construct a paradoxical sentence that effectively asserts its own falsehood. Natural languages do allow the use of "is true", so by Tarski's argument a semantics for natural language must leave truth-value gaps: some sentences must fail to have a truth value. In [8] Kripke showed how a model having truth-value gaps, using Kleene's three-valued logic, could be specified. The mechanism he used is a famiUar one in program semantics: consider the least fixed point of a certain monotone operator. But that operator must be defined on a space involving three-valued logic, and for Kripke's application it will not be continuous. We apply techniques similar to Kripke's to logic programs. We associate with each program a monotone operator on a space of three-valued logic interpretations, or better partial interpretations. This space is not a complete lattice, and the operators are not, in general, continuous. But least and other fixed points do exist. These fixed points are shown to provide suitable three-valued program models. They relate closely to the least and greatest fixed points of the operators used in [1]. Because of the extra machinery involved, our treatment allows for a natural consideration of negation, and indeed, of the other prepositional connectives as well. And because of the elaborate structure of fixed points available, we are able to The problem of deciding the satisfiability of a quantifier-free formula with respect to a background theory, also known as Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT), is gaining increasing relevance in verification: representation capabilities beyond propositional logic allow for a natural modeling of real-world problems (e.g., pipeline and RTL circuits verification, proof obligations in software systems). In this paper, we focus on the case where the background theory is the combination T1∪T2 of two simpler theories. Many SMT procedures combine a boolean model enumeration with a decision procedure for T1∪T2, where conjunctions of literals can be decided by an integration schema such as Nelson-Oppen, via a structured exchange of interface formulae (e.g., equalities in the case of convex theories, disjunctions of equalities otherwise). We propose a new approach for SMT(T1∪T2), called Delayed Theory Combination, which does not require a decision procedure for T1∪T2, but only individual decision procedures for T1 and T2, which are directly integrated into the boolean model enumerator. This approach is much simpler and natural, allows each of the solvers to be implemented and optimized without taking into account the others, and it nicely encompasses the case of non-convex theories. We show the effectiveness of the approach by a thorough experimental comparison.