Weighted Rules under the Stable Model Semantics

Large Language Models (LLMs) can propose rules in natural language, sidestepping the need for a predefined predicate space in traditional rule learning. Yet many LLM-based approaches ignore interactions among rules, and the opportunity to couple LLMs with probabilistic rule learning for robust inference remains underexplored. We present RLIE, a unified framework that integrates LLMs with probabilistic modeling to learn a set of weighted rules. RLIE has four stages: (1) Rule generation, where an LLM proposes and filters candidates; (2) Logistic regression, which learns probabilistic weights for global selection and calibration; (3) Iterative refinement, which updates the rule set using prediction errors; and (4) Evaluation, which compares the weighted rule set as a direct classifier with methods that inject rules into an LLM. We evaluate multiple inference strategies on real-world datasets. Applying rules directly with their learned weights yields superior performance, whereas prompting LLMs with the rules, weights, and logistic-model outputs surprisingly degrades accuracy. This supports the view that LLMs excel at semantic generation and interpretation but are less reliable for precise probabilistic integration. RLIE clarifies the potential and limitations of LLMs for inductive reasoning and couples them with classic probabilistic rule combination methods to enable more reliable neuro-symbolic reasoning.

A Markov Logic Network (MLN) is a probabilistic relational model used in Statistical Relational Artificial Intelligence for defining a probability distribution on the set of possible worlds with domain $D$ for an arbitrary finite domain $D$. An MLN consists of soft constraints with associated weights which are nonnegative real numbers. In this study we consider a language speaking about a property $P(x)$ and a relation $R(x, y)$. We consider an MLN for which every Boolean combination of $P(x)$ and $R(x, y)$ is a soft constraint (with associated weight). Let $n$ denote the size (cardinality) of the domain. We show that, for every choice of weights, if the weights are scaled by $1/n$ then, for every first-order sentence $\varphi$, the probability that $\varphi$ holds tends to either 0 or 1 as $n \to \infty$; that is, a 0-1 law for first-order logic holds. Morover, the limit probability does {\em not} depend on the weights. If we instead use the standard semantics of MLNs, in the case of which the weights are {\em not} scaled, then the limit behaviour is more complicated and {\em depends} on the weights. With unscaled weights we get 7 qualitatively different cases which depend on the weights. In some cases we have a 0-1 law for first-order logic, in some cases not, but we may still have a convergence law. The influence of the weights on the asymptotic probability of a first-order sentence may be in the form of a sudden ``phase transition'' from one of the 7 cases to another. The presence of a convergence law has positive implications for inference on large domains.

Motivated by challenging modelling issues in the life sciences, we investigate the relationship between logic programming semantics and the eventual states of causal processes compatible with those logic programs. More precisely, we show that while stable models of positive logic programs correspond to the eventual states of processes commencing from a neutral state and continuing undisturbed indefinitely, supported models describe the eventual states reachable from arbitrary starting points. This also contributes to the discussion of the appropriate semantics for logic programming as a causal rule language, adding a temporal perspective to recent interpretations of the stable and supported model semantics from an explanatory viewpoint of causality.