Recognition: unknown
Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning: A Survey and Interpretation
read the original abstract
The study and understanding of human behaviour is relevant to computer science, artificial intelligence, neural computation, cognitive science, philosophy, psychology, and several other areas. Presupposing cognition as basis of behaviour, among the most prominent tools in the modelling of behaviour are computational-logic systems, connectionist models of cognition, and models of uncertainty. Recent studies in cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and psychology have produced a number of cognitive models of reasoning, learning, and language that are underpinned by computation. In addition, efforts in computer science research have led to the development of cognitive computational systems integrating machine learning and automated reasoning. Such systems have shown promise in a range of applications, including computational biology, fault diagnosis, training and assessment in simulators, and software verification. This joint survey reviews the personal ideas and views of several researchers on neural-symbolic learning and reasoning. The article is organised in three parts: Firstly, we frame the scope and goals of neural-symbolic computation and have a look at the theoretical foundations. We then proceed to describe the realisations of neural-symbolic computation, systems, and applications. Finally we present the challenges facing the area and avenues for further research.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Temporal Reasoning Is Not the Bottleneck: A Probabilistic Inconsistency Framework for Neuro-Symbolic QA
Temporal reasoning is not the core bottleneck for LLMs on time-based QA; the real issue is unstructured text-to-event mapping, addressed by a neuro-symbolic system with PIS that reaches 100% accuracy on benchmarks whe...
-
Hard to See, Hard to Label: Generative and Symbolic Acquisition for Subtle Visual Phenomena
GSAL combines diffusion-based visual difficulty scoring with hierarchical semantic coverage to improve active learning retrieval of subtle and rare visual anomalies over standard uncertainty and diversity methods.
-
Syntax Is Easy, Semantics Is Hard: Evaluating LLMs for LTL Translation
LLMs handle LTL syntax better than semantics, improve with detailed prompts, and perform substantially better when the task is reframed as Python code completion.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.