Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Defining neurosymbolic AI

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper defines a neurosymbolic model as a language, semantics, interpretation space, and belief function, and defines inference as one integral of a logic function against a belief function; if right, this one formula covers most…

desk verdict A genuinely useful formal definition of neurosymbolic inference, but the LTN/SBR examples rely on a Dirac delta that violates the paper's own measurability condition, so the unification claim is overbroad as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11127 v1 pith:IMWGC72C submitted 2025-07-15 cs.AI

Lennert De Smet , Luc De Raedt This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords neurosymbolicAIformaldefinitioninferenceLebesgueintegrallogicfunctionbeliefweightedmodelcountingfuzzy
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

The paper is trying to give neurosymbolic AI a single formal definition, which the field currently lacks despite its many systems. It proposes that a neurosymbolic model is a logical language with semantics, a space of interpretations, and a parametrized belief function, and that neurosymbolic inference is the computation of one integral: the product of a logic function that selects interpretations and a belief function that weights them, integrated over the interpretation space. If this definition is right, then apparently disparate systems such as DeepProbLog, SPL, NeurASP, NMLN, LTN, SBR, and NeuPSL are all computing instances of the same mathematical object. That matters because a shared semantic core would let researchers compare, combine, and theoretically analyze neurosymbolic systems instead of treating each as a bespoke design.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the neurosymbolic functional, $F_\theta(\phi) = \int_{\Omega'} l(\phi,\omega)\, b_\theta(\phi,\omega)\, dm(\omega)$. It combines two functions over the same space of interpretations: the logic function $l$ filters interpretations to those whose semantic value falls in a desired set, and the belief function $b_\theta$ supplies weights, typically from a neural network; the measure $m$ gives the space its aggregation structure. Every system in the unification is an instantiation of this triple. The integral form also carries the paper's well-definedness criterion: when $l$ and $b_\theta$ are measurable on the chosen measure space, inference is guaranteed to be a well-defined quantity.

What would settle it

Find a representative neurosymbolic system whose central inference task is MAP or algebraic model counting and show that no single measure $m$ and belief $b_\theta$ make Definition 3.3 compute it; the paper's Section 4.3 already concedes such tasks need nested integrals or generalized measures, so a concrete instance would mark exactly where the unification stops.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Definition 3.3: given a model $(L, \mu, \Omega, b_\theta)$, a logic function $l$, and a measure space $(\Omega, \Sigma_\Omega, m)$, neurosymbolic inference is the value of the functional $F_\theta(\phi) = \int_{\Omega'} l(\phi, \omega)\, b_\theta(\phi, \omega)\, dm(\omega)$, where $\Omega'$ is the subset of interpretations determined by the symbols of interest. Here $l$ is a logic function that returns a nonzero value only for interpretations whose semantic value lands in a chosen set, $b_\theta$ is a belief function that weights interpretations, usually with neural-network parameters, and the Lebesgue integral aggregates those weighted, logically filtered interpretations. The paper argues that by fixing the language, semantics, belief, and measure, this one expression recovers inference in DeepProbLog, SPL, NeurASP, NMLN, LTN, SBR, NeuPSL, and the other systems listed in Table 1, and that it reduces to weighted model counting and weighted model integration in the purely probabilistic finite and hybrid cases. The authors offer this as a definition of what neurosymbolic inference is, not as an empirical observation, and Proposition 3.4 states the condition under which it is well-defined: the logic function and belief function must be measurable.

Load-bearing premise

The unification holds only if every representative neurosymbolic system's inference can be written as a single integral of a logic function times a belief function over interpretations, with the belief permitted to depend on the queried formula; if a significant class of systems cannot be cast this way without changing the algorithm, the definition does not unify them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Weighted model counting and weighted model integration are recovered as special cases: a finite counting measure yields WMC, and a blend of counting and Borel measures yields WMI.
  • The Boolean probabilistic systems DeepProbLog, NeurASP, SPL, and NMLN all become instances of the same integral with a Boolean logic function and a probability distribution as the belief function.
  • The fuzzy systems LTN and SBR become instances with a Dirac-delta belief concentrated on a learned interpretation, while NeuPSL becomes an instance with a fuzzy logic function and an exponential-family belief over fuzzy interpretations.
  • When the neural component is removed and beliefs are left probabilistic, the definition supplies a formal inference semantics for statistical relational AI as well.
  • Proposition 3.4 turns well-definedness into a checkable measurability condition on the chosen logic and belief functions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the integral view suggests an expressiveness hierarchy for neurosymbolic systems, ordered by which measures and belief functions a given architecture can actually implement; that ordering is not drawn in the paper but falls out of Definition 3.3.
  • Beyond the paper: the exceptions the authors concede, MAP inference and algebraic model counting, mark a concrete next test; if generalized or fuzzy measures can express those tasks within the same functional form, the unification extends further than the paper currently claims.
  • Beyond the paper: because the belief function is allowed to depend on the queried formula, $b_\theta(\phi,\omega)$, the definition is more permissive than most systems' actual belief models; whether that dependence is needed to fit Table 1, or is a notational convenience, is a question the definition leaves open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. The paper proposes a formal definition of neurosymbolic AI models and inference. A neurosymbolic model is a quadruple (L, µ, Ω, b_θ) consisting of a logical language with semantics over interpretations and a parametrised belief function. Neurosymbolic inference is defined as computing the functional F_θ(φ) = ∫_{Ω'} l(φ, ω) b_θ(φ, ω) dm(ω), i.e., the integral of a logic function times a belief function with respect to a measure on the space of interpretations. The authors argue that this definition abstracts key representative neurosymbolic systems, including DeepProbLog, SPL, NeurASP, NMLN, LTN, SBR, and NeuPSL, and relates inference to weighted model counting and weighted model integration. The paper also discusses limitations, noting that MAP inference and algebraic model counting fall outside the current definition.

Significance. The paper addresses a real gap: the lack of a commonly agreed formal semantics for neurosymbolic AI. Its core idea, that many NeSy systems compute an integral of a logical selection function against a belief function, is elegant and potentially useful for comparing systems and for studying their theoretical properties. Strengths include the explicit recovery of WMC/WMI as special cases, the correct worked instantiations for the Boolean probabilistic systems (DeepProbLog, SPL, NeurASP, NMLN), and the honest Limitations section. However, the central unification claim is not yet fully established as written: the Dirac-delta treatment of LTN and SBR is not consistent with the formal definition, and the table of systems overstates the amount of evidence provided. If these technical issues are repaired, the framework could become a valuable reference point for the field.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (4.9)] Claim 4.4 and Equation (4.9) represent LTN and SBR inference by setting the belief function to a Dirac delta, b_θ(φ, ω) = δ(ω − ω_θ). A Dirac delta is not a real-valued measurable function on Ω, so it does not satisfy the conditions of Definition 3.3 and Proposition 3.4; the expression in (4.9) is a distributional pairing, not a Lebesgue integral of a product of two measurable functions. The paper must either generalise Definition 3.3 to allow measure-valued or distributional beliefs (with corresponding well-definedness conditions) or exhibit a measurable belief approximation and state in which sense the equality holds. As written, the claimed instantiation of LTN and SBR is not established.
  2. [Table 1 and Claims 4.2/4.4] Table 1 lists 24 systems, but the arguments in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 only establish the correspondence for a subset: DeepProbLog, SPL, NeurASP, NMLN, LTN, SBR, and NeuPSL. Rows such as αILP, Scallop, SLASH, TensorLog, NLM, and NTP are asserted without derivation, and for some of these the identification of the logic function and belief function is not obvious (e.g., NLM/NTP with 'neural semantics'). The text should state explicitly which table rows are proven, which are conjectured, and which are left for future work; otherwise the table overstates the evidence for the unifying claim.
  3. [§3, Proposition 3.4] Proposition 3.4 claims that neurosymbolic inference is well-defined whenever l and b_θ are measurable, but measurability alone does not guarantee that the Lebesgue integral in Equation (3.2) is finite or even defined (the integral can diverge, or the positive and negative parts can both be infinite). The paper should state an integrability condition for the product l(φ, ·) b_θ(φ, ·), or explicitly define inference using the extended Lebesgue integral and state when the result is finite. Without this, the formal definition is not fully rigorous as a definition of inference.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'wether' should be 'whether'.
  2. [§3, Definition 3.3] Equation (3.2) integrates over Ω′ ⊆ Ω, but the definition does not specify how Ω′ is chosen or why Ω′ itself must be a measurable subset; the text says only that it is 'determined by a subset of the symbols of L'.
  3. [§4.3] The Limitations section correctly notes that MAP inference and algebraic model counting fall outside Definition 3.3, but the abstract and conclusion should be reworded slightly so that the central claim is 'key representative inference tasks' rather than 'neurosymbolic inference' in full generality, matching what is actually proven.
  4. [§3, belief function] The belief function b_θ is allowed to depend on the formula φ, and indeed the NMLN instantiation in Eq. (4.6) uses a belief that depends on the queried sentence's decomposition; this is permitted by Definition 3.2 but deserves an explicit remark, since formula-dependent beliefs are non-standard and affect the interpretation of the integral.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Coverage of LTN and SBR is by construction: the Dirac-delta 'belief function' makes the integral equal to the target value by definition, and it is not a measurable function under Definition 3.3.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.2, Example 4.3 and Claim 4.4, Eq. (4.9)]
    "Only considering a single fuzzy interpretation corresponds to choosing a belief function that is a Dirac delta distribution, i.e. bθ(φ, ω) = δ(ω − ωθ). Indeed, we can use the collapsing property of the Dirac delta distribution δ to write φF(ωθ) = ∫ΩF φF(ω)δ(ω − ωθ)dω, (4.9)"

    The claimed unification of LTN and SBR is exhibited by defining the belief function so that the integral reduces to the queried value φF(ωθ) by the collapsing property of δ. Because Definition 3.3 leaves the belief function 'completely free' and LTN/SBR compute exactly φF(ωθ), the integral is not an independently derived computation of their inference; it is a notation for it. Moreover, Definitions 3.2 and 3.3 require bθ : L × Ω → R and Proposition 3.4 requires measurability; δ is a distribution, not a real-valued measurable function, so the formal conditions are bypassed. The representation therefore reduces to an equation of the form target = integral-with-target-as-belief, i.e., it is true by construction rather than evidence of a shared semantics.

full rationale

This is a definition and synthesis paper, not an empirical prediction paper, so most self-citations and flexible parameter choices are not circular. The Boolean-semantics cases (DeepProbLog, SPL, NeurASP, NMLN) are genuine: their inference is a weighted sum or integral over models, so instantiation is a mathematical identity rather than a fit. NeuPSL similarly computes a fuzzy expectation. The one place where the central claim reduces by construction is the LTN/SBR treatment, where a Dirac delta 'belief' makes the integral equal to the target by definition while violating the measurability condition of Proposition 3.4. Section 4.3 honestly lists MAP inference and algebraic model counting as falling outside Definition 3.3, which limits the scope but does not make the Boolean derivation circular. On balance, the unification claim is partially engineered for fuzzy point-estimate systems, so a score of 6 is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard measure theory plus a number of domain assumptions about the logical languages and belief functions. The free-parameters list is empty because the paper proposes a definition, not a fitted model. The axioms capture the embedding of semantic values in R+, the shared domain, measurability, and the standard mathematical background. The invented-entities list is empty because no new objects (particles, forces, dimensions) are postulated; 'logic function' and 'belief function' are abstract components of the definition.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The set V of semantic values is assumed to be embeddable in R+.
    Section 2, after the definition of semantics: this embedding lets the integral of semantic values be taken over real-valued functions.
  • domain assumption All symbols share a common domain D.
    Section 2, footnote 5: 'The assumption of having a shared domain is made to simplify notation and holds without loss of generality.'
  • domain assumption The logic function l and belief function b_theta are measurable with respect to the measure space (Omega, Sigma_Omega, m).
    Proposition 3.4: well-definedness of neurosymbolic inference requires measurability.
  • standard math Lebesgue integration and measure theory as standard mathematical background.
    Appendix A defines the measure-theoretic machinery used in Definition 3.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Defining neurosymbolic AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IMWGC72C

@misc{pith2026250711127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Defining neurosymbolic AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IMWGC72C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11127}
}
read the original abstract

Neurosymbolic AI focuses on integrating learning and reasoning, in particular, on unifying logical and neural representations. Despite the existence of an alphabet soup of neurosymbolic AI systems, the field is lacking a generally accepted formal definition of what neurosymbolic models and inference really are. We introduce a formal definition for neurosymbolic AI that makes abstraction of its key ingredients. More specifically, we define neurosymbolic inference as the computation of an integral over a product of a logical and a belief function. We show that our neurosymbolic AI definition makes abstraction of key representative neurosymbolic AI systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11127 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The main intuition behind neurosymbolic inference. Note how the interpretations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. From Hybrid Mechanistic--Data-Driven Modeling Toward Neuro-Symbolic AI: What, Why, and How

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hybrid mechanistic/data-driven models can be translated into a neuro-symbolic tuple (language, semantics, beliefs, logic), yielding structure-vs-uncertainty metrics that flag extrapolation risk before test data are seen.

  2. Symbolic Neural Generation with Applications to Lead Discovery in Drug Design

    cs.LG 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A hybrid system that learns symbolic interval constraints from a few examples and uses an LLM plus rejection filtering to generate new candidate drug molecules.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in ":" * " " * FUNCTION f...

  2. [2]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command n...

  3. [3]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@first@sw \@firstoftwo \@ifundefined NAT@b*@#2 \@firstoftwo @num @NAT@ctr \@secondoft...

  4. [4]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibsetup #1 @NAT@ctr @ @openbib .11em \@plus.33em \@minus.07em 4000 4000 `\.\@m @bibit...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Semantic probabilistic layers for neuro-symbolic learning

    Kareem Ahmed, Stefano Teso, Kai-Wei Chang, Guy Van den Broeck, and Antonio Vergari. Semantic probabilistic layers for neuro-symbolic learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 29944--29959, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Visual sudoku puzzle classification: A suite of collective neuro-symbolic tasks

    Eriq Augustine, Connor Pryor, Charles Dickens, Jay Pujara, William Wang, and Lise Getoor. Visual sudoku puzzle classification: A suite of collective neuro-symbolic tasks. In International Workshop on Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning (NeSy), 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    -nesy: A possibilistic neuro-symbolic approach

    Isma \" l Baaj and Pierre Marquis. -nesy: A possibilistic neuro-symbolic approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07055, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Dimensions of neural-symbolic integration - A structured survey

    Sebastian Bader and Pascal Hitzler. Dimensions of neural-symbolic integration - A structured survey. CoRR, abs/cs/0511042, 2005

    arXiv 2005

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Logic tensor networks

    Samy Badreddine, Artur d'Avila Garcez, Luciano Serafini, and Michael Spranger. Logic tensor networks. Artificial Intelligence, 303: 0 103649, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Probabilistic inference in hybrid domains by weighted model integration

    Vaishak Belle, Andrea Passerini, Guy Van den Broeck, et al. Probabilistic inference in hybrid domains by weighted model integration. In Proceedings of 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 2770--2776. AAAI Press/International Joint Confe...

    2015

  3. [11]

    Besold, Artur S

    Tarek R. Besold, Artur S. d'Avila Garcez, Sebastian Bader, Howard Bowman, Pedro M. Domingos, Pascal Hitzler, Kai - Uwe K \" u hnberger, Lu \' s C. Lamb, Daniel Lowd, Priscila Machado Vieira Lima, Leo de Penning, Gadi Pinkas, Hoifung Poon, and Gerson Zaverucha. Neural-symbolic ...

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    On probabilistic inference by weighted model counting

    Mark Chavira and Adnan Darwiche. On probabilistic inference by weighted model counting. Artificial Intelligence, 172 0 (6-7): 0 772--799, 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    Probabilistic circuits: A unifying framework for tractable probabilistic models

    Y Choi, Antonio Vergari, and Guy Van den Broeck. Probabilistic circuits: A unifying framework for tractable probabilistic models. UCLA. URL: http://starai. cs. ucla. edu/papers/ProbCirc20. pdf, page 6, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Theory of capacities

    Gustave Choquet. Theory of capacities. In Annales de l'institut Fourier, volume 5, pages 131--295, 1954

    1954

  7. [15]

    Tensorlog: A probabilistic database implemented using deep-learning infrastructure

    William Cohen, Fan Yang, and Kathryn Rivard Mazaitis. Tensorlog: A probabilistic database implemented using deep-learning infrastructure. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 67: 0 285--325, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    How to tell deep neural networks what we know

    Tirtharaj Dash, Sharad Chitlangia, Aditya Ahuja, and Ashwin Srinivasan. How to tell deep neural networks what we know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.10295, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    d'Avila Garcez, Marco Gori, Lu \' s C

    Artur S. d'Avila Garcez, Marco Gori, Lu \' s C. Lamb, Luciano Serafini, Michael Spranger, and Son N. Tran. Neural-symbolic computing: An effective methodology for principled integration of machine learning and reasoning. FLAP , 6, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Compositional approach to translate ltlf/ldlf into deterministic finite automata

    Giuseppe De Giacomo and Marco Favorito. Compositional approach to translate ltlf/ldlf into deterministic finite automata. In Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling, volume 31, pages 122--130, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces

    Giuseppe De Giacomo, Moshe Y Vardi, et al. Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces. In Ijcai, volume 13, pages 854--860, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Statistical Relational Artificial Intelligence: Logic, Probability, and Computation

    Luc De Raedt , Kristian Kersting, Sriraam Natarajan, and David Poole. Statistical Relational Artificial Intelligence: Logic, Probability, and Computation. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2016. doi:10.2200/S00692ED1V01Y201601AIM032. URL https://doi.org/10.2200/S00692ED1V01Y201601AIM032

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    From statistical relational to neuro-symbolic artificial intelligence

    Luc De Raedt, Sebastijan Dumančić, Robin Manhaeve, and Giuseppe Marra. From statistical relational to neuro-symbolic artificial intelligence. In Christian Bessiere, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-20 , pa...

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Neural probabilistic logic programming in discrete-continuous domains

    Lennert De Smet, Pedro Zuidberg Dos Martires, Robin Manhaeve, Giuseppe Marra, Angelika Kimmig, and Luc De Readt. Neural probabilistic logic programming in discrete-continuous domains. UAI, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Neurosymbolic ai for reasoning on biomedical knowledge graphs

    Lauren Nicole DeLong, Ramon Fern \'a ndez Mir, Zonglin Ji, Fiona Niamh Coulter Smith, and Jacques D Fleuriot. Neurosymbolic ai for reasoning on biomedical knowledge graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08411, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Semantic-based regularization for learning and inference

    Michelangelo Diligenti, Marco Gori, and Claudio Sacc \` a . Semantic-based regularization for learning and inference. Artif. Intell., 244, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Neural logic machines

    Honghua Dong, Jiayuan Mao, Tian Lin, Chong Wang, Lihong Li, and Denny Zhou. Neural logic machines. In ICLR, 2019. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=B1xY-hRctX

    2019

  18. [26]

    Declarative probabilistic logic programming in discrete-continuous domains

    Pedro Zuidberg Dos Martires, Luc De Raedt, and Angelika Kimmig. Declarative probabilistic logic programming in discrete-continuous domains. Artificial Intelligence, 337: 0 104227, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    A brief overview of possibilistic logic

    Didier Dubois, J \'e r \^o me Lang, and Henri Prade. A brief overview of possibilistic logic. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, pages 53--57. Springer, 1991

    1991

  20. [28]

    Dl2: training and querying neural networks with logic

    Marc Fischer, Mislav Balunovic, Dana Drachsler-Cohen, Timon Gehr, Ce Zhang, and Martin Vechev. Dl2: training and querying neural networks with logic. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1931--1941. PMLR, 2019

    1931

  21. [29]

    Artur d'Avila Garcez and Lu \' s C. Lamb. Neurosymbolic AI : The 3rd Wave . Artificial Intelligence Review, 2023. doi:10.1007/s10462-023-10448-w. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10448-w

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Neural-symbolic learning and reasoning: a survey and interpretation

    Artur d’Avila Garcez, Sebastian Bader, Howard Bowman, Luis C Lamb, Leo de Penning, BV Illuminoo, Hoifung Poon, and COPPE Gerson Zaverucha. Neural-symbolic learning and reasoning: a survey and interpretation. Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence: The State of the Art, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    The stable model semantics for logic programming

    Michael Gelfond and Vladimir Lifschitz. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In ICLP/SLP, volume 88, pages 1070--1080. Cambridge, MA, 1988

    1988

  24. [32]

    Theory of t-norms and fuzzy inference methods

    Madan M Gupta and J11043360726 Qi. Theory of t-norms and fuzzy inference methods. Fuzzy sets and systems, 40 0 (3): 0 431--450, 1991

    1991

  25. [33]

    Kamruzzaman Sarker, editors

    Pascal Hitzler and Md. Kamruzzaman Sarker, editors. Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence: The State of the Art, volume 342 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press, 2021. ISBN 978-1-64368-244-0. doi:10.3233/FAIA342. URL https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA342

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Toward a broad AI

    Sepp Hochreiter. Toward a broad AI . Communications of the ACM, 65 0 (4): 0 56--57, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Valid text-to-sql generation with unification-based deepstochlog

    Ying Jiao, Luc De Raedt, and Giuseppe Marra. Valid text-to-sql generation with unification-based deepstochlog. In International Conference on Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning, pages 312--330. Springer, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Henry A. Kautz. The third AI summer: AAAI Robert S. Engelmore memorial lecture. AI Mag. , 43 0 (1): 0 93--104, 2022. doi:10.1609/aimag.v43i1.19122. URL https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v43i1.19122

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Algebraic model counting

    Angelika Kimmig, Guy Van den Broeck, and Luc De Raedt. Algebraic model counting. Journal of Applied Logic, 22: 0 46--62, July 2017. ISSN 15708683. doi:10.1016/j.jal.2016.11.031. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S157086831630088X

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Inductive learning of answer set programs from noisy examples

    Mark Law, Alessandra Russo, and Krysia Broda. Inductive learning of answer set programs from noisy examples. CoRR, abs/1808.08441, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.08441

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Scallop: A language for neurosymbolic programming

    Ziyang Li, Jiani Huang, and Mayur Naik. Scallop: A language for neurosymbolic programming. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 7 0 (PLDI): 0 1463--1487, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Investigations into the sentential calculus

    Jan Lukasiewicz and Alfred Tarski. Investigations into the sentential calculus. Logic, semantics, metamathematics, pages 38--59, 1956

    1956

  33. [41]

    Soft-unification in deep probabilistic logic

    Jaron Maene and Luc De Raedt. Soft-unification in deep probabilistic logic. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 0 60804--60820, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Nesya: Neurosymbolic automata

    Nikolaos Manginas, George Paliouras, and Luc De Raedt. Nesya: Neurosymbolic automata. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07331, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    DeepProbLog: neural probabilistic logic programming

    Robin Manhaeve, Sebastijan Dumančić, Angelika Kimmig, Thomas Demeester, and Luc De Raedt . DeepProbLog: neural probabilistic logic programming. In NeurIPS, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Neural probabilistic logic programming in DeepProbLog

    Robin Manhaeve, Sebastijan Dumančić, Angelika Kimmig, Thomas Demeester, and Luc De Raedt. Neural probabilistic logic programming in DeepProbLog . Artificial Intelligence, 298: 0 103504, September 2021. ISSN 00043702. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2021.103504. URL https://linkinghub.els...

    2021

  37. [45]

    Neural markov logic networks

    Giuseppe Marra and Ond r ej Ku z elka. Neural markov logic networks. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 908--917. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Integrating learning and reasoning with deep logic models

    Giuseppe Marra, Francesco Giannini, Michelangelo Diligenti, and Marco Gori. Integrating learning and reasoning with deep logic models. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 517--532. Springer, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    From statistical relational to neurosymbolic artificial intelligence: A survey

    Giuseppe Marra, Sebastijan Duman c i \'c , Robin Manhaeve, and Luc De Raedt. From statistical relational to neurosymbolic artificial intelligence: A survey. Artificial Intelligence, page 104062, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    A semantic framework for neurosymbolic computation

    Simon Odense and Artur d'Avila Garcez. A semantic framework for neurosymbolic computation. Artificial Intelligence, 340: 0 104273, 2025

    2025

  41. [49]

    Neupsl: Neural probabilistic soft logic

    Connor Pryor, Charles Dickens, Eriq Augustine, Alon Albalak, William Wang, and Lise Getoor. Neupsl: Neural probabilistic soft logic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14268, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    End-to-end differentiable proving

    Tim Rockt \"a schel and Sebastian Riedel. End-to-end differentiable proving. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    On the semantics of fuzzy logic

    Enrique H Ruspini. On the semantics of fuzzy logic. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 5 0 (1): 0 45--88, 1991

    1991

  44. [52]

    Logic Tensor Networks : Deep Learning and Logical Reasoning from Data and Knowledge

    Luciano Serafini and Artur d'Avila Garcez. Logic Tensor Networks : Deep Learning and Logical Reasoning from Data and Knowledge . arXiv:1606.04422 [cs], July 2016. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.04422. arXiv: 1606.04422

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Conditional sum-product networks: Imposing structure on deep probabilistic architectures

    Xiaoting Shao, Alejandro Molina, Antonio Vergari, Karl Stelzner, Robert Peharz, Thomas Liebig, and Kristian Kersting. Conditional sum-product networks: Imposing structure on deep probabilistic architectures. In International Conference on Probabilistic Graphical Models, pages ...

    2020

  46. [54]

    ilp: thinking visual scenes as differentiable logic programs

    Hikaru Shindo, Viktor Pfanschilling, Devendra Singh Dhami, and Kristian Kersting. ilp: thinking visual scenes as differentiable logic programs. Machine Learning, 112 0 (5): 0 1465--1497, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Neural-Probabilistic Answer Set Programming

    Arseny Skryagin, Wolfgang Stammer, Daniel Ochs, Devendra Singh Dhami, and Kristian Kersting. Neural-Probabilistic Answer Set Programming . In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning , pages 463--473, 8 2022. doi:...

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    Logic of differentiable logics: Towards a uniform semantics of dl

    Natalia Slusarz, Ekaterina Komendantskaya, Matthew L Daggitt, Robert Stewart, and Kathrin Stark. Logic of differentiable logics: Towards a uniform semantics of dl. In Proceedings of 24th International Conference on Logic, volume 94, pages 473--493, 2023

    2023

  49. [57]

    Lifted relational neural networks: Efficient learning of latent relational structures

    Gustav Sourek, Vojtech Aschenbrenner, Filip Zelezny, Steven Schockaert, and Ondrej Kuzelka. Lifted relational neural networks: Efficient learning of latent relational structures. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 62: 0 69--100, 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    Beyond the convexity assumption: Realistic tabular data generation under quantifier-free real linear constraints

    Mihaela C Stoian and Eleonora Giunchiglia. Beyond the convexity assumption: Realistic tabular data generation under quantifier-free real linear constraints. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  51. [59]

    Fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral

    Michio Sugeno. Fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral. Transactions of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers, 8 0 (2): 0 218--226, 1972

    1972

  52. [60]

    Neurosymbolic motion and task planning for linear temporal logic tasks

    Xiaowu Sun and Yasser Shoukry. Neurosymbolic motion and task planning for linear temporal logic tasks. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Neural-symbolic integration: A compositional perspective

    Efthymia Tsamoura, Timothy Hospedales, and Loizos Michael. Neural-symbolic integration: A compositional perspective. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 35, pages 5051--5060, 2021

    2021

  54. [62]

    Modular Design Patterns for Hybrid Learning and Reasoning Systems : a taxonomy, patterns and use cases

    Michael van Bekkum, Maaike de Boer, Frank van Harmelen, André Meyer-Vitali, and Annette ten Teije. Modular Design Patterns for Hybrid Learning and Reasoning Systems : a taxonomy, patterns and use cases. arXiv:2102.11965 [cs], March 2021. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.11965. ar...

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A boxology of design patterns for hybrid learning and reasoning systems

    Frank van Harmelen and Annette ten Teije. A boxology of design patterns for hybrid learning and reasoning systems. J. Web Eng., 18 0 (1-3): 0 97--124, 2019. doi:10.13052/jwe1540-9589.18133. URL https://doi.org/10.13052/jwe1540-9589.18133

    2019

  56. [64]

    Uller: A unified language for learning and reasoning

    Emile van Krieken, Samy Badreddine, Robin Manhaeve, and Eleonora Giunchiglia. Uller: A unified language for learning and reasoning. In International Conference on Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning, pages 219--239. Springer, 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    An automata-theoretic approach to linear temporal logic

    Moshe Y Vardi. An automata-theoretic approach to linear temporal logic. In Logics for concurrency: structure versus automata, pages 238--266. Springer, 2005

    2005

  58. [66]

    Generalized measure theory, volume 25

    Zhenyuan Wang and George J Klir. Generalized measure theory, volume 25. Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

    2010

  59. [67]

    u nchmeyer, Ulf Leser, and Tim Rockt \

    Leon Weber, Pasquale Minervini, Jannes M \" u nchmeyer, Ulf Leser, and Tim Rockt \" a schel. Nlprolog: Reasoning with weak unification for question answering in natural language. In ACL , 2019. doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1618. URL https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/p19-1618

    2019 doi

  60. [68]

    DeepStochLog: neural stochastic logic programming

    Thomas Winters, Giuseppe Marra, Robin Manhaeve, and Luc De Raedt. DeepStochLog: neural stochastic logic programming. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 10090--10100, 2022 a

    2022

  61. [69]

    Deepstochlog: Neural stochastic logic programming

    Thomas Winters, Giuseppe Marra, Robin Manhaeve, and Luc De Raedt. Deepstochlog: Neural stochastic logic programming. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 10090--10100, 2022 b

    2022

  62. [70]

    A semantic loss function for deep learning with symbolic knowledge

    Jingyi Xu, Zilu Zhang, Tal Friedman, Yitao Liang, and Guy Van den Broeck. A semantic loss function for deep learning with symbolic knowledge. In ICML , 2018

    2018

  63. [71]

    Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning

    Fan Yang, Zhilin Yang, and William W Cohen. Differentiable learning of logical rules for knowledge base reasoning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  64. [72]

    Safe reinforcement learning via probabilistic logic shields

    Wen-Chi Yang, Giuseppe Marra, Gavin Rens, and Luc De Raedt. Safe reinforcement learning via probabilistic logic shields. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5739--5749, 2023

    2023

  65. [73]

    NeurASP: embracing neural networks into answer set programming

    Zhun Yang, Adam Ishay, and Joohyung Lee. NeurASP: embracing neural networks into answer set programming. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI, pages 1755--1762, 2020

    2020

  66. [74]

    Fuzzy sets

    Lotfi A Zadeh. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 1965

    1965

  67. [75]

    Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility

    Lotfi Asker Zadeh. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy sets and systems, 1 0 (1): 0 3--28, 1978

    1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.