REVIEW 1 cited by
A Semantic Framework for Neuro-Symbolic Computing
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The field of neuro-symbolic AI aims to benefit from the combination of neural networks and symbolic systems. A cornerstone of the field is the translation or encoding of symbolic knowledge into neural networks. Although many neuro-symbolic methods and approaches have been proposed, and with a large increase in recent years, no common definition of encoding exists that can enable a precise, theoretical comparison of neuro-symbolic methods. This paper addresses this problem by introducing a semantic framework for neuro-symbolic AI. We start by providing a formal definition of semantic encoding, specifying the components and conditions under which a knowledge-base can be encoded correctly by a neural network. We then show that many neuro-symbolic approaches are accounted for by this definition. We provide a number of examples and correspondence proofs applying the proposed framework to the neural encoding of various forms of knowledge representation. Many, at first sight disparate, neuro-symbolic methods, are shown to fall within the proposed formalization. This is expected to provide guidance to future neuro-symbolic encodings by placing them in the broader context of semantic encodings of entire families of existing neuro-symbolic systems. The paper hopes to help initiate a discussion around the provision of a theory for neuro-symbolic AI and a semantics for deep learning.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
HyDRA: A Hybrid-Driven Reasoning Architecture for Verifiable Knowledge Graphs
HyDRA, a contract-driven LLM pipeline for building ontologies and knowledge graphs, scored 42-62% accuracy on MedExQA biomedical QA while an ontology-free baseline scored 95-98%.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.