Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

The RAIL Principles for Neurosymbolic AI: Reasoning, Assurances, Interfacing and Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Neurosymbolic AI is not a niche; four axes unify it.

desk verdict RAIL gives the neurosymbolic field a genuinely useful shared vocabulary, but the paper's own admission that it is qualitative undercuts the engineering-benefit claim; still worth a serious read and referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04285 v1 pith:22ZNDXHL submitted 2026-08-04 cs.AI cs.LG

Agnese Chiatti , Michael Cochez , Cristina Cornelio , Sebastijan Dumancic , Artur d'Avila Garcez , Luis C. Lamb , Lia Morra , Mathias Niepert
show 9 more authors
Robert Peharz Alberto Speranzon Maarten Stol Annette Ten Teije Thiviyan Thanapalasingam Frank Van Harmelen Emile Van Krieken Antonio Vergari Benjie Wang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords neurosymbolicAIRAILprinciplesdesignspaceknowledge-guidedlearningtool-augmentedlanguagemodelscausalphysics-awaremachineneuro-guidedsearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that neurosymbolic AI—combining machine learning with symbolic reasoning—is not a narrow subfield but a broad design pattern present in many successful AI systems. It proposes four principles, Reasoning, Assurances, Interfacing, and Learning (RAIL), and claims that almost any AI system, from physics-aware machine learning to neuro-guided search, causal learning, and tool-augmented large language models, can be placed on the RAIL spectra. The intended payoff is practical: engineers could use the framework to make more principled choices about where to encode knowledge, how to provide guarantees, and how to let neural and symbolic components communicate. The paper is deliberately a qualitative first step, leaving operational definitions and metrics for future work.

What carries the argument

The central object is the RAIL design space: four qualitative spectra treated as the axes of a shared representation for AI systems. Reasoning runs from implicit pattern completion through structural neural reasoning (reasoning encoded in the network's structure) and neurosymbolic blends to formal logical reasoning; Assurances run from requiring external validation through relaxed or mixed constraint handling to verified ex-post and verified-by-design; Interfacing runs from pure embeddings through weakly structured and mixed representations to structured and pure symbolic representations; Learning runs from no learning and data-only learning through knowledge-guided to bidirectional and continual neurosymbolic learning. The framework operates by locating a system as a point or region in this four-dimensional space, so that design lessons from one system become visible and transferable.

What would settle it

Build operational definitions of the four RAIL axes and place two candidate architectures for the same high-stakes task at the same point in the space; if their reliability, data efficiency, or explainability differ sharply, the axes are not capturing what matters. A cheaper check is to survey deployed industrial pipelines and ask whether the RAIL placement of a module stack predicts which systems suffer error propagation and interface discontinuities; if it does not, the framework's engineering payoff vanishes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the neurosymbolic combination of machine learning and formal reasoning is not a niche approach but the shape of many successful AI systems, including some not usually labeled neurosymbolic. Read through the four RAIL dimensions, seemingly unrelated systems occupy a shared design space, and their differences become trade-offs along known axes: implicit versus explicit reasoning, relaxed versus verified assurances, opaque versus structured interfaces, and data-only versus knowledge-guided or bidirectional learning. Because the axes are interdependent, viable architectures are constrained by the whole space, and moving a system along one dimension, for example adding verified symbolic constraints to a neural model, changes what is possible on the others. If the framework is right, RAIL gives designers a common vocabulary and a principled way to build production systems that are reliable, explainable, and compositional.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's load-bearing assumption is that the four RAIL axes, each treated as a qualitative spectrum, are the right and sufficient dimensions for characterizing neurosymbolic AI; the paper explicitly concedes it offers only a qualitative treatment and leaves operational criteria, formal definitions, and concrete metrics to future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If RAIL is right, the boundary between neurosymbolic AI and mainstream AI dissolves: physics-aware machine learning, causal learning, tool-augmented language models, and industrial modular pipelines are instances of the same design pattern, so techniques developed in one area can be imported into the others.
  • Engineers gain a checklist for placing a candidate architecture: choose where knowledge enters the system (architecture, loss, or interface), what assurances are required and where they are enforced (by design, at inference, or ex-post), and whether the symbolic structure stays fixed or evolves through learning.
  • For tool-augmented language models, the framework predicts that reliability depends on balancing explicit symbolic tools for control and verification against subsymbolic flexibility, and that scaling the number of tools will require the right symbolic scaffolding.
  • Purely neural systems have inherent limits on reasoning and assurances, so fully reliable future systems will have to occupy the whole RAIL spectrum rather than the neural end alone.
  • The biggest industrial impact of neurosymbolic methods will come through assurances implemented as formal yet differentiable methods inside existing modular software stacks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that operationalizing each RAIL axis would allow a quantitative test: if systems that move toward verified-by-design assurances and bidirectional learning systematically dominate same-task systems that do not, the framework's predictive value would be confirmed.
  • For unseen domains such as multimodal agents or autonomous robotics, the framework suggests a transferable design rule: when the interface between perceptions and formal knowledge is weak, expect the other three dimensions to be strained, so invest in the representation before adding more learning capacity.
  • An industry-level claim that could be evaluated in a controlled deployment study is that teams using RAIL-style reasoning about module boundaries should produce pipelines with fewer interface discontinuities and error-propagation failures than teams that assemble modules ad hoc.
  • Applied to current language models, RAIL suggests that augmenting models with verifiable external tools is a shift along the Assurances and Reasoning axes, not an add-on, so benchmarks should measure tool-selection stability and error cascades as properties of the whole neurosymbolic loop rather than of the base model alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This position paper proposes the RAIL framework, a four-dimensional design space for neurosymbolic AI consisting of Reasoning, Assurances, Interfacing, and Learning, each represented as a qualitative spectrum. The authors argue that many prominent AI systems—including knowledge-graph completion, the Alpha* neuro-guided search family, tool-augmented language models such as ReAct, causal learning and reasoning, physics-aware machine learning, and industrial modular pipelines—can be analyzed through this lens, even when they are not usually labeled neurosymbolic. They claim that RAIL provides a unified view of these disparate systems and will enable engineers to make better-informed and more principled design decisions. The paper illustrates the framework with qualitative case studies and radar plots, discusses trade-offs among the dimensions, and explicitly concedes in Section 4 that operational criteria, formal definitions, and concrete metrics are left to future work.

Significance. If operationalized, RAIL could provide a useful common vocabulary for comparing neurosymbolic architectures and for reasoning about design trade-offs. The paper's breadth is a genuine strength: it draws together physics-informed ML, causal inference, neuro-guided search, and LLM tool use under a single set of categories, and the case studies themselves are thoughtful and by and large plausible. The authors also deserve credit for candidly acknowledging in Section 4 that the treatment is qualitative and that the framework is not yet a practical tool. However, the central utility claim—that RAIL enables better design decisions—is not empirically demonstrated, and the classifications rest on unstated mappings from qualitative labels to numerical radar-plot values. The framework is therefore best read as a promising proposal or vocabulary rather than a validated instrument.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §3.3, §4] The radar plots assign numerical values (0–4) on the RAIL axes, but the paper never states how the qualitative spectrum labels in Figure 1 are mapped to these numbers. Section 4 concedes that "operational criteria, formal definitions, and concrete metrics" are left to future work. Without a transparent scoring rule or anchor examples, the positions assigned to AlphaGo, ReAct, and physics-informed networks are not reproducible, so the classifications cannot support the claim that RAIL enables better-informed design decisions. Please add a scoring rubric or explicit anchor systems, or report inter-rater agreement on a sample of systems.
  2. [Abstract, §1] The paper's central utility claim—that applying RAIL "will enable engineers to make better-informed and more principled decisions"—is stated as a fact but is not tested. No evidence is provided that using the framework changes or improves an actual design decision, and no comparison is made against a baseline design process. I am not requiring a full user study for a position paper, but the claim should be reframed as a proposal or hypothesis, or supported by at least one worked example in which RAIL is shown to discriminate between otherwise plausible design alternatives.
  3. [§3.2] The identified trade-offs, such as the "Reasoning–Assurance trade-off" and "Interfacing asymmetry", are asserted from a small set of Alpha-family examples rather than derived from the definitions of the dimensions. Because the dimensions are defined qualitatively and the radar values are not derived, it is unclear whether these trade-offs are properties of the systems or artifacts of the authors' placement on the axes. Please clarify the evidential status of these lessons, or present them as conjectures to be tested once operational criteria exist.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1] The figure would benefit from a caption explaining how to read intermediate positions and whether the five labeled positions per axis are exhaustive or illustrative.
  2. [§3.1, §3.3] The radar plots have no visible axis legends or tick labels in the preprint text; ensure each figure names the blue/red series and the numeric scale.
  3. [§2.1] The phrase "emergent reasoning by similarity" conflates similarity-based pattern completion with reasoning; consider defining "reasoning" more precisely or consistently across the paper.
  4. [§4] The sentence "We trust the community will rise to this challenge" is informal for a journal article and could be replaced with a more concrete statement of the needed next steps.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: RAIL is a qualitative framework with explicitly deferred operationalization, and its case-study classifications do not reduce to fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper does not derive a quantitative output from fitted inputs or invoke a self-citation chain to force its central claims. The RAIL principles are introduced as a qualitative four-dimensional design space, and the case studies (AlphaGo, ReAct, causal models, physics-informed ML, industrial stacks) are positioned on that space as interpretive illustrations for a proposed taxonomy. There is no equation in which an output equals an input by construction; the radar plots are qualitative summaries, not numerical predictions with a documented mapping from the textual spectra to the 0-4 values. The central claim that RAIL 'offers a unified view' is a framing assertion, not a theorem derived from its definitions. Section 4 concedes that 'operational criteria, formal definitions, and concrete metrics' are future work, which is a limitation on the utility claim rather than evidence of circularity: those missing criteria are not used to generate the classifications. Self-citations such as [13], [14], [16], and [33] support background terminology and prior work on neural-symbolic reasoning and differentiable fuzzy logic; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the RAIL axes. Any critique here concerns under-specification or falsifiability, which are correctness risks, not circular reductions. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No numeric parameters are fitted, and no new physical or mathematical entities are postulated. The ledger instead records the paper's unvalidated scaffolding: the assumed completeness of the RAIL dimensions and the representativeness of the case studies. The RAIL design space itself is an invented conceptual entity with no falsifiable handle.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The four RAIL dimensions are a sufficient and non-redundant set of axes for characterizing neurosymbolic AI systems.
    Section 2 and Figure 1 present the four dimensions without an argument for completeness; the framework could omit relevant axes (e.g., data efficiency, ethics).
  • domain assumption Qualitative placement of systems on the RAIL spectra is meaningful for engineering decisions.
    Section 4 acknowledges that operational criteria and metrics are missing, so placements are subjective.
  • domain assumption The selected case studies (knowledge discovery, Alpha systems, tool-augmented LLMs, causality, physics-aware ML) are representative of the broader AI landscape.
    Section 3 chooses examples that fit the framework; other AI areas (e.g., generative art, robotics) are omitted.
invented entities (1)
  • RAIL four-dimensional design space
    purpose: Analytical framework to classify and compare neurosymbolic AI systems along Reasoning, Assurances, Interfacing, and Learning.
    The framework is a post hoc taxonomy of existing systems; it makes no falsifiable predictions and offers no measurements, so there is no independent evidence beyond the descriptive case studies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The RAIL Principles for Neurosymbolic AI: Reasoning, Assurances, Interfacing and Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/22ZNDXHL

@misc{pith2026260804285,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The RAIL Principles for Neurosymbolic AI: Reasoning, Assurances, Interfacing and Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/22ZNDXHL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04285}
}
read the original abstract

Neurosymbolic AI systems that integrate machine learning and symbolic reasoning are rapidly gaining attention. They complement the data-intensive statistical approaches of neural networks and language models with symbolic reasoning algorithms to function in high-stakes domains or in low-data regimes that characterize many real-world applications. We argue that the neurosymbolic combination of machine learning and formal reasoning is not a niche approach within AI, but rather includes many already successful techniques that are of crucial importance to the development of reliable, efficient and, ultimately, trustworthy systems. This perspective prompts a re-examination of the design of current AI systems. We show that many leading AI systems, including some that are not traditionally considered as neurosymbolic, can be analysed from the perspective of four principles of neurosymbolic AI design: Reasoning, Assurances, Interfacing and Learning (RAIL). Applying the RAIL framework offers a unified view of seemingly disparate AI systems, ranging from physics-aware machine learning to neuro-guided search (such as Google DeepMind's Alpha-* suite), causal learning and tool-augmented Large Language Models. Importantly, the RAIL principles will enable engineers to make better-informed and more principled decisions about the design and deployment of production-level AI systems. In this article, we introduce the RAIL principles, examine how they can be applied across major areas of AI, and illustrate how they may guide practitioners to integrate neurosymbolic methods into next-generation AI technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04285 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The four RAIL principles of Neurosymbolic AI. Each principle exists on a qualitative spectrum, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Boxe: a box embedding model for knowledge base completion

    Ralph Abboud, Ilkan Ceylan, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Tommaso Salvatori. Boxe: a box embedding model for knowledge base completion. InProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’20, Red Hook, NY , USA, 2020. Curran Associates Inc. ISBN 9781713829546

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Lie point symmetry and physics-informed networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:42468–42481, 2023

    Tara Akhound-Sadegh, Laurence Perreault-Levasseur, Johannes Brandstetter, Max Welling, and Siamak Ravanbakhsh. Lie point symmetry and physics-informed networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:42468–42481, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Program synthesis with large language models

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. Program synthesis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Logic tensor net- works.Artificial Intelligence, 303:103649, 2022

    Samy Badreddine, Artur d’Avila Garcez, Luciano Serafini, and Michael Spranger. Logic tensor net- works.Artificial Intelligence, 303:103649, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    The price of meaning: Why every semantic memory system forgets, 2026

    Sambartha Ray Barman, Andrey Starenky, Sofia Bodnar, Nikhil Narasimhan, and Ashwin Gopinath. The price of meaning: Why every semantic memory system forgets, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2603.27116

    work page arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    E(3)-equivariant graph neural networks for data- efficient and accurate interatomic potentials.Nature Communications, 13(1):1–11, 2022

    Simon Batzner, Albert Musaelian, Lixin Sun, Mario Geiger, Jonathan Mailoa, Mordechai Kornbluth, Nicola Molinari, Tess Smidt, and Boris Kozinsky. E(3)-equivariant graph neural networks for data- efficient and accurate interatomic potentials.Nature Communications, 13(1):1–11, 2022. URLhttps: //www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29939-5.pdf

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Lamb, Priscila Vieira Lima, Leo de Penning, Gadi Pinkas, et al

    Tarek Besold, Artur d’Avila Garcez, Sebastian Bader, Howard Bowman, Pedro Domingos, Pascal Hit- zler, Kai-Uwe K ¨uhnberger, Luis C. Lamb, Priscila Vieira Lima, Leo de Penning, Gadi Pinkas, et al. Neural-symbolic learning and reasoning: A survey and interpretation. InNeuro-symbolic artificial in- telligence: The state of the art, pages 1–51. IOS press, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Automated program refinement: Guide and verify code large language model with refinement calculus.Proc

    Yufan Cai, Zhe Hou, David Sanan, Xiaokun Luan, Yun Lin, Jun Sun, and Jin Song Dong. Automated program refinement: Guide and verify code large language model with refinement calculus.Proc. ACM Program. Lang., 9(POPL), January 2025. doi: 10.1145/3704905. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/ 3704905

    doi:10.1145/3704905 2025

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Knowledge graph completion: A review.IEEE Access, 8:192435–192456, 2020

    Zhe Chen, Yuehan Wang, Bin Zhao, Jing Cheng, Xin Zhao, and Zongtao Duan. Knowledge graph completion: A review.IEEE Access, 8:192435–192456, 2020. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3030076. 9 Chiatti et al. The RAIL Principles for Neurosymbolic AI A PREPRINT

    2020

  2. [10]

    Evolving sci- entific discovery by unifying data and background knowledge with ai hilbert.Nature Communications, 15(1):5922, 2024

    Ryan Cory-Wright, Cristina Cornelio, Sanjeeb Dash, Bachir El Khadir, and Lior Horesh. Evolving sci- entific discovery by unifying data and background knowledge with ai hilbert.Nature Communications, 15(1):5922, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Inductive logic programming at 30: A new introduction

    Andrew Cropper and Sebastijan Duman ˇci´c. Inductive logic programming at 30: A new introduction. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 74:765–850, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Scientific machine learning through physics-informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next.Journal of Scientific Computing, 92(3):1–56, 2022

    Salvatore Cuomo, Vittorio Di Cola, Francesco Giampaolo, Gianluigi Rozza, Maziar Raissi, and Francesco Piccialli. Scientific machine learning through physics-informed neural networks: Where we are and what’s next.Journal of Scientific Computing, 92(3):1–56, 2022. URLhttps://lin...

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Artur d’Avila Garcez and Luis C. Lamb. Reasoning about time and knowledge in neural-symbolic learning systems. In S. Thrun, L. Saul, and B. Sch ¨olkopf, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), volume 16. MIT Press, 2003. URLhttps://proceedings.neurips...

    2003

  6. [14]

    Lamb, and Dov M

    Artur d’Avila Garcez, Luis C. Lamb, and Dov M. Gabbay.Neural-Symbolic Cognitive Reasoning. Springer, 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    Discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms with reinforcement learning.Nature, 610 (7930):47–53, 2022

    Alhussein Fawzi, Matej Balog, Aja Huang, Thomas Hubert, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Moham- madamin Barekatain, Alexander Novikov, Francisco Ruiz, Julian Schrittwieser, Grzegorz Swirszcz, et al. Discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms with reinforcement learning.Natu...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Artur d’Avila Garcez and Lu ´ıs C. Lamb. Neurosymbolic AI: the 3rd wave.Artif. Intell. Rev., 56 (11):12387–12406, 2023. doi: 10.1007/S10462-023-10448-W. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/ s10462-023-10448-w

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    CCN+: A neuro-symbolic framework for deep learning with requirements.International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 171:109124, 2024

    Eleonora Giunchiglia, Alex Tatomir, Mihaela C ˘at˘alina Stoian, and Thomas Lukasiewicz. CCN+: A neuro-symbolic framework for deep learning with requirements.International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 171:109124, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2024.109124. URLhttps://doi.org/10...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Hamiltonian neural networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    Samuel Greydanus, Misko Dzamba, and Jason Yosinski. Hamiltonian neural networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019. URLhttps://proceedings.neurips.cc/ paper_files/paper/2019/file/26cd8ecadce0d4efd6cc8a8725cbd1f8-Paper.pdf

    2019

  11. [19]

    Rashid, Anisa Rula, Lukas Schmelzeisen, Juan Sequeda, Steffen Staab, and Antoine Zimmermann

    Aidan Hogan, Eva Blomqvist, Michael Cochez, Claudia D’Amato, Gerard De Melo, Claudio Gutierrez, Sabrina Kirrane, Jos´e Emilio Labra Gayo, Roberto Navigli, Sebastian Neumaier, Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo, Axel Polleres, Sabbir M. Rashid, Anisa Rula, Lukas Schmelzeisen, Juan Seque...

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    DeepProbLog: Neural probabilistic logic programming

    Robin Manhaeve, Sebastijan Duman ˇci´c, Angelika Kimmig, Thomas Demeester, and Luc De Raedt. DeepProbLog: Neural probabilistic logic programming. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10872

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    An in- troduction to anyburl

    Christian Meilicke, Melisachew Wudage Chekol, Daniel Ruffinelli, and Heiner Stuckenschmidt. An in- troduction to anyburl. In Christoph Benzm¨uller and Heiner Stuckenschmidt, editors,KI 2019: Advances in Artificial Intelligence - 42nd German Conference on AI, Kassel, Germany, S...

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Pearl and D

    J. Pearl and D. Mackenzie.The book of why: the new science of cause and effect. Basic Books, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Cambridge University Press, 2000

    Judea Pearl.Causality. Cambridge University Press, 2000. 2nd edition, 2009

    2000

  16. [24]

    Purohit, Y

    D. Purohit, Y . Chudasama, M. Torrente, and M.-E. Vidal. Vise: Validated and invalidated symbolic ex- planations for knowledge graph integrity. InProceedings of the First Workshop on Explainable Artificial Intelligence for the Medical Domain (EXPLIMED), 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Maziar Raissi, Paris Perdikaris, and George E Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial dif- ferential equations.Journal of Computational Physics, 378:686–707, 2019. URLhttps://...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach them- selves to use tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68539–68551, 2023

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dess `ı, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach them- selves to use tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68539–68551,...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Toward causal representation learning.Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(5): 612–634, 2021

    Bernhard Sch ¨olkopf, Francesco Locatello, Stefan Bauer, Nan Rosemary Ke, Nal Kalchbrenner, Anirudh Goyal, and Yoshua Bengio. Toward causal representation learning.Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(5): 612–634, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Estimating the causal impact of recommendation systems from observational data

    Amit Sharma, Jake Hofman, and Duncan Watts. Estimating the causal impact of recommendation systems from observational data. InProceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 453–470, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search.nature, 529(7587):484–489, 2016

    David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George Van Den Driessche, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, et al. Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search.nature, 529(7587):484–489, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    ViperGPT: Visual inference via python execution for reasoning

    D ´ıdac Sur´ıs, Sachit Menon, and Carl V ondrick. ViperGPT: Visual inference via python execution for reasoning. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 11888– 11898, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Modular design patterns for hybrid learning and reasoning systems: a taxonomy, patterns and use cases.Applied Intelligence, 51(9):6528–6546, September 2021

    Michael van Bekkum, Maaike de Boer, Frank van Harmelen, Andr ´e Meyer-Vitali, and Annette ten Teije. Modular design patterns for hybrid learning and reasoning systems: a taxonomy, patterns and use cases.Applied Intelligence, 51(9):6528–6546, September 2021. ISSN 0924-669X. doi...

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Elsevier, 2008

    Frank Van Harmelen, Vladimir Lifschitz, and Bruce Porter.Handbook of knowledge representation, volume 1. Elsevier, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Analyzing differentiable fuzzy logic opera- tors.Artificial Intelligence, 302:103602, 2022

    Emile van Krieken, Erman Acar, and Frank van Harmelen. Analyzing differentiable fuzzy logic opera- tors.Artificial Intelligence, 302:103602, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Informed machine learning – a taxonomy and survey of integrating prior knowledge into learning systems.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(1):614–633, 2023

    Laura von Rueden, Sebastian Mayer, Katharina Beckh, Bogdan Georgiev, Sven Giesselbach, Raoul Heese, Birgit Kirsch, Julius Pfrommer, Annika Pick, Rajkumar Ramamurthy, Michal Walczak, Jochen Garcke, Christian Bauckhage, and Jannis Schuecker. Informed machine learning – a taxonom...

    2023

  27. [35]

    CodeARC: Benchmarking reasoning capabilities of llm agents for inductive program synthesis

    Anjiang Wei, Tarun Suresh, Jiannan Cao, Naveen Kannan, Yuheng Wu, Kai Yan, Thiago Teixeira, Ke Wang, and Alex Aiken. CodeARC: Benchmarking reasoning capabilities of llm agents for inductive program synthesis. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Language Modeling, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Contrastive counterfactual visual explanations with overde- termination.Machine Learning, 112:3497–3525, 2023

    Adam White, Kwun Ho Ngan, James Phelan, Kevin Ryan, Saman Sadeghi Afgeh, Constantino Carlos Reyes-Aldasoro, and Artur d’Avila Garcez. Contrastive counterfactual visual explanations with overde- termination.Machine Learning, 112:3497–3525, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s10994-023-06333-w....

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InEleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Adaptable logical control for large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 115563–115587, 2024

    Honghua Zhang, Po-Nien Kung, Masahiro Yoshida, Guy Van den Broeck, and Nanyun Peng. Adaptable logical control for large language models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 115563–115587, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Position: Trustworthy AI agents require the integration of large language models and formal methods

    Yedi Zhang, Yufan Cai, Xinyue Zuo, Xiaokun Luan, Kailong Wang, Zhe Hou, Yifan Zhang, Zhiyuan Wei, Meng Sun, Jun Sun, Jing Sun, and Jin Song Dong. Position: Trustworthy AI agents require the integration of large language models and formal methods. In42nd Int. Conf. on Machine L...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.