Axiom

We study certificates of positivity and optimality for learning problems whose objectives and constraints need not be polynomial. We isolate an axiomatic core of Fischer's constructive strict and weak Positivstellensätze and prove the resulting theorems for abstract function algebras over ordered fields. The framework separates two roles that can otherwise be conflated: objective and constraint functions may be built from broad classes of continuous or definable operations, while the auxiliary primitives used to construct a certificate satisfy explicit scalar and closure axioms. We give instances over continuous and definable function algebras, including ordered fields not closed under square roots, derive lower-bound and global-optimality certificates, and analyze both expanded term length and shared computation-graph complexity.

Systematic trading rests on one article of faith: that regularities found in the past persist. This paper does three things. First, it states that faith as five axioms, each a commonplace practitioners already accept: (A1) a decision may use only what was known when it was made; (A2) what looks like the market changing its rules is the market changing its unobserved state, the machinery being the same in every era; (A3) the future may replay stretches of the past, though not in history's proportions; (A4) states persist for a while; (A5) whatever predictability exists is slight, even for a rule that knows the state. What turns these into axioms is quantification, and the quantities are declared rather than estimated: an invariance defect $\varepsilon_0$, a recurrence bound $Λ$ at a block scale $b$ (one declaration in two parts), coherence times $\ell_i$, a signal ceiling $ρ$ and an invariance ratio $κ$. These five declarations are the whole of the premises' empirical content. Second, it proves that the axioms force a five-stage canonical form for a quantitative investment system -- a declared representation, a predictor within a capacity ceiling, contiguous purged block evaluation aggregated by $\mathrm{CVaR}_{1/Λ}$, a budgeted and deflated search, robust sizing at a fraction of the estimate that the budget bounds -- each stage necessary: a procedure omitting it does strictly worse under a law the axioms admit. Third, it tests the axioms where they are falsifiable, each only at its declared constants, on real market series: no axiom is so far overturned.

Analogies are quaternary relations of the form "A is to B as C is to D". Among the various formalizations of analogical reasoning, proportional analogies provide an important axiomatic framework by characterizing valid analogies through a set of postulates. While proportional analogies have been extensively studied over Boolean, symbolic, and real-valued domains, their extension to probability distributions remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we introduce a notion of proportional analogy for probability distributions based on Bayesian updating. Our approach builds upon the idea that two distributions are related whenever one can be transformed into the other through Bayesian updating induced by a suitable set of observations. We investigate this framework for several standard members of the exponential family and discuss how it naturally extends to arbitrary probability distributions through Gaussian mixture approximations.

Full justified representation (FJR) is among the strongest known satisfiable proportionality axioms for approval-based committee elections. Recent work has shown that an FJR committee can be found in polynomial time, but verifying whether a given committee satisfies FJR remains coNP-complete. We introduce FJR+, a strict strengthening of FJR and EJR+ that can be verified and satisfied in polynomial time. We then analyze the Residual-Budget Greedy (RBG) algorithm and prove that it selects a partial committee such that every size-$k$ completion satisfies FJR+. This freedom allows us to use sequential Phragmén to obtain a priceable completion. The resulting rule always satisfies FJR+ and the sub-core, and it is priceable whenever at least $k$ candidates receive an approval. We also obtain a Droop-quota version of FJR+. Finally, we extend FJR+ to approval-based participatory budgeting with arbitrary project costs. A project-specific version of RBG computes this property in polynomial time and can be continued to a priceable outcome satisfying a cost-based version of the sub-core.

A common problem in social choice is to determine whether there is a social choice procedure, such as a voting method, satisfying some desired criteria. Computer-aided methods such as SAT solving can sometimes answer these questions. However, under typical encodings, a SAT solver may only synthesize a voting method on a finite domain, while we may want one on an infinite domain, such as the domain of all preference profiles for a fixed number of candidates but any finite number of voters. In this paper, we use an approach based on reasoning with constrained Horn clauses and computation with polyhedra to synthesize a voting method on an infinite domain. We then use SMT and Lean to verify its properties. Our main result is a possibility theorem about four well-known criteria from voting theory: the Condorcet winner and loser criteria, positive involvement, and resolvability. Previous work has shown that for five or more candidates, there is no voting method satisfying these axioms, and that for four candidates, there is no method satisfying these core axioms plus one more invariance axiom. Here we show that for four candidates, there does exist a method satisfying the core axioms and more.

This paper investigates whether the postmodern claim of unrestricted semantic indeterminacy, and its foundational Saussurean axiom of the arbitrary sign, are compatible with the structural architecture of Classical Arabic. We develop a formal mathematical model of Arabic non concatenative morphology in which lexical meaning is determined by the interaction between an invariant root and a morphosyntactic pattern. Within this framework, we establish a Morphological Correspondence Theorem, demonstrating that every lexical item is uniquely generated by a root pattern pair, and a Semantic Localization Theorem, proving that lexical meaning is determined at the derivational level prior to surface realization. To address Saussurean weaker notion of relative arbitrariness, we formalize it via conditional Kolmogorov complexity, defining arbitrariness algorithmically as the no rule property. We prove that general relative arbitrariness is formally undecidable, while Arabic relative arbitrariness is decidable and provably less than 1 for its motivated signifiers (Levels W and M), establishing a strict system complexity asymmetry over Indo-European languages.

Representation theorems in decision theory establish that behavior satisfies certain axioms if and only if it can be rationalized by a well-defined objective. I argue that this ``if and only if'' structure provides a potentially useful foundation for label-free evaluation and regularization of LLMs and other AI systems. Axiom compliance can be checked from the model's own responses to synthetic choice problems, with no external labels or human feedback, and the penalties are readily computable. Because the axioms are necessary and sufficient, the resulting checks exhaust the implications of the relevant rationality standard for the elicited data: a model that passes cannot be rejected on rationality grounds by any further test of the same data. I discuss three instantiations: probabilistic coherence via a theorem of de Finetti, preference rationality via Afriat's theorem, and subjective expected utility via a theorem of Echenique and Saito (2015), each yielding a continuous penalty that is zero whenever behavior can be rationalized. Since coherence does not restrict which objective rationalizes behavior, these penalties complement rather than replace other evaluation and training signals.

Science-intensive data profiling focuses on discovery and validation of various patterns in datasets. This study considers discovery of one such pattern - order dependency (OD). Simply put, OD states that some list of columns is ordered according to another one. It is of use for database query optimization, data cleaning and deduplication, anomaly detection, and much more. Existing discovery methods have approached this problem solely from the algorithmic standpoint, without focusing on the implementation side. At the same time, this problem is very computationally intensive, and therefore this part should not be ignored, as it brings ODs closer to industrial use. In this paper, we study two algorithms for OD discovery which target different OD axiomatizations - FASTOD and ORDER. We start by reimplementing these algorithms in C++ in order to speed them up and lower their memory consumption. We then analyze their bottlenecks and propose several techniques which improve their performance even further. To perform evaluation, we have implemented these algorithms inside Desbordante - a science-intensive, high-performance, and open-source data profiling tool developed in C++. Experiments have demonstrated a performance improvement of up to 3x obtained by reimplemented versions, and, with the application of our techniques, up to 10x. Memory consumption has been lowered by up to 2.9x.

In automated planning, logical regression is an operation that returns the most general condition necessary for an action to achieve a particular formula. It has many applications, such as allowing for more robust plan execution and providing compact policies for non-deterministic planning. Although relatively simple to calculate in basic planning settings, logical regression becomes significantly more complex when additional factors, such as axioms, are present. We introduce a methodology for approximating the logical regression of an action in a domain that includes axioms; an approximation that limits conditions to partial states. Our method produces minimal partial states while avoiding the recalculation of axioms. To demonstrate the impact of our methods, we embed our form of regression in an execution monitoring context, a well-established setting that can benefit greatly from logical regression. Our results show that this form of regression can dramatically generalize partial states across multiple domains, reducing the number of variables considered for execution monitoring by up to 70%, and demonstrate that the resulting execution monitor is robust enough to recover frequently in an environment with unexpected changes: several domains recover over 50% of the time in our tests.

Goal reasoning in Non-Axiomatic Logic (NAL) explains how an adaptive system derives means for realizing desired events under insufficient knowledge and resources. However, the representation of avoidance is less clear. A common convention is to express avoid $G$'' as the goal sentence $\neg G!$'', but this notation conflates two different readings: pursuing the negated event $\neg G$, and avoiding the positive event $G$. This paper shows that the conflation can produce a paradoxical case in which an avoidance intention is converted into a positive goal to act merely because acting is usually followed by the absence of hurt. Starting from NAL's basic definition of goals, the framework is extended with a corresponding definition of anti-goals, so that avoidance can be represented without treating it as the pursuit of a negated event. Finally, a mental operation, $\op{prevent}$, is introduced to connect anti-goal reasoning with ordinary goal reasoning in cases of active prevention. Four minimal case studies check that the resulting rules distinguish pursuit, passive avoidance, active prevention, and withholding action to preserve a desired event.

In this work we propose a dynamic turn in paraconsistency. We introduce AMLFI1, the action model extension of the paraconsistent logic LFI1. A special case is PALFI1, a paraconsistent logic of public announcements. It corresponds to another, recently published, paraconsistent public announcement logic: the differences in their axiomatizations are mutually admissible. We also introduce UMLFI1, that extends AMLFI1 with factual change. Soundness and completeness are proven for all logics, and all extend the epistemic paraconsistent logics KLFI1, KB4LFI1 and S5LFI1, known from the literature. With such dynamic epistemic paraconsistent logics we can formalize obtaining and resolving provisional contradictions.

The softmax policy $π(a \mid s) \propto \exp(βQ(s,a))$ is the default model of stochastic choice in reinforcement learning (RL). Various justifications based on robustness, exploration, and optimization have been offered in the RL literature, but none uniquely derives the softmax form from first principles. This leaves a basic tension unresolved: the entropy bonus in the soft Bellman equation violates the Independence axiom that underwrites the Markov decision process (MDP) reward structure. We dissolve this tension by distinguishing two kinds of randomness: chance and choice. By restricting von Neumann-Morgenstern (VNM) Independence to environmental lotteries over base prospects, we show that imposing independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) and monotonicity on the policy and value functions at choice nodes uniquely determines the Boltzmann policy, the entropy-regularized representation, and the soft Bellman equation. The choice between the soft and hard Bellman equations thus reduces to a design decision: whether the agent values its own ability to choose. We develop RL-specific consequences, including return monotonicity and convergence under generalized discounting, and synthesize the independent lines from economics and information theory that arrive at the same structure, offering a normative assessment of when IIA is appropriate for agent design.

Topos causal models recast causal inference inside a topos: a causal world is a presheaf, an intervention is a sub-model named by a characteristic map into the subobject classifier $\Om$, and reasoning is Kripke-Joyal forcing in an intuitionistic internal language. We give the first axiom-free machine-checked account of this 1-topos core, in Cubical Agda over a previously verified probability monad and do-calculus; the framework is otherwise developed on paper, with central claims stated rather than proved. Three of our results go beyond faithful transcription. We exhibit a contextuality obstruction the programme does not treat: pairwise-consistent local causal data with no global model, detected by a degree-one holonomy class. We delimit the claim that interventions are modelled by the subobject classifier: an intervention and an observation name the same subobject, so $\Om$ fixes the target of a do-operation but not the operation itself, which is surgery on the kernels --- where, on a confounder, the interventional and observational laws differ. And we settle the modal unit --- inflationarity is derivable from $j\top = \top$ and naturality, not a fourth axiom. We also machine-check the classifier of sieves with its classification theorem, the pullback collating local mechanisms, and the Kripke-Joyal forcing clauses. The development assumes no axioms and typechecks under Agda's \texttt{--safe} flag, with the ordered field discharged at $\mathbb{Q}$; type-level sheafification and a directed do-calculus are future work.

Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny. We present EG-VAR (Evidence-Grounded Verified Agentic Reasoning), a Lean 4-based tool-calling architecture in which the Lean kernel is the sole minter of Verified claims via tool-attestation axioms and declared source lifts. Every verified output structurally descends from an attested tool call (Thm. 3.1) and a kernel-checked chain of valid inference (Thm. 3.2); residual outputs are honest Abstain with a replayable audit trail. On a subcollection of TableBench numerical reasoning (n=120), EG-VAR attains 120/120 versus a 95% same-tool baseline; on counterfactual stress tests (5 domains x 2 models), EG-VAR stays 100% source-faithful while same-tool drops to 80-90% (no-tool 50-80%). With the LLM as deployment-time formalizer, residual semantic-formalization error is 3.3% on Sonnet and 1.7% on Opus. We position EG-VAR as a technical-governance interface for high-stakes empirical claims: a formal sidecar makes the target proposition, source scope, evidence boundary, proof obligation, and abstention condition auditable, eliminating unsupported Verified outputs today while turning formalization errors, lift and source-authority disputes, ambiguities, and abstentions into explicit audit targets. Over time, typed sidecars in datasets, APIs, public records, and AI-generated documents can amortize this formalization burden into reusable infrastructure.

Dynamic epistemic logic represents belief change via model transformations induced by epistemic events. Its standard formulation (Baltag, Moss, Solecki, 1998) provides a natural account of belief expansion through the elimination of possibilities, but it cannot model belief contraction about factual propositions. A classic response enriches Kripke models with plausibility orderings, representing contraction as an update that promotes certain possibilities over others. We show that this approach has expressive limitations. In particular, the approach cannot model belief that violates positive introspection and contraction dynamics in response to a hedged public announcement that phi might be false. Motivated by these considerations, we introduce a mechanism for belief contraction defined directly on standard Kripke models, without any constraints on the doxastic accessibility relation. We show that it satisfies some of the standard properties of belief contraction but not others, study the conditions under which contraction may be unsuccessful, and provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic via reduction axioms. We also define a more general dynamic logic that is an extension of standard DEL and accommodates belief contractions due to events such as private or semi-private announcements, and provide a complete and sound axiomatization of the general logic.

We investigate a new logic that extends Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL), by combining standard epistemic modalities for (individual and distributed) propositional knowledge with operators for (conditional) non-propositional knowledge of a number (in which an agent or a group have knowledge of the value of some variable x, conditional on some additional information). We also generalize these operators, by considering formulas that express the fact that an agent or group can (conditionally) narrow down the possible values of the variable x to at most N possibilities (for some natural number N). In order to name and compare such hypothetical values, we extend the logic further with definite descriptions based on minimization operators, denoting the least of the N possible values of x (according to some fixed order) that are considered possible by the agent or group. On this static base, we consider DEL-style extensions with dynamic modalities for general 'data-exchange events' (covering private and public propositional announcements, but also secret hacking of a private database, or public sharing of one's data via open-source repositories, etc.). In such scenarios, whole 'chunks' of information may be exchanged or modified: once access to a given source is gained, all the 'data' stored at that specific location becomes available. We give complete axiomatizations for the resulting logics, and prove their decidability and co-expressivity.

There are by now various epistemic modal logics with intersection modalities for distributed knowledge and intersection update modalities for dynamic phenomena like agents sharing (all their) information, agents receiving information from other agents, and full information protocols. One of those is the logic of Resolving Distributed Knowledge, by Agotnes and Wang. It has distributed knowledge modalities for arbitrary subsets of the set of all agents and it also has so-called resolution modalities for arbitrary subsets of agents sharing their knowledge. In that logic, the agents not involved in the knowledge sharing are aware of the agents sharing knowledge, agents are memory-less, and the kind of dynamics represents synchronous updates, where there is common awareness of the global clock. In contrast, in this contribution we present a logic for Resolving Asynchronous Distributed Knowledge. It is an asynchronous generalization of the synchronous logic of resolving distributed knowledge. The logical semantics is history-based: truth is not only with respect to a given world in a model, but also with respect to a given history of prior resolutions, of which each individual agent can only observe a part. In particular, an agent is unaware of resolutions for groups of agents not including her. As is to be expected, this comes with many technical complications, for example concerning the axiomatization. The synchronous axioms relating resolution to distributed knowledge are now invalid. The modelling advantages of such an asynchronous novel logic, for distributed computing and similar areas, are however substantial and a major asset.

Recent artificial intelligence (AI) systems have shown remarkable progress in mathematical reasoning. Many existing approaches, including large language models (LLMs), draw on human prior knowledge in the form of mathematical text, code, or theorem libraries. Although these approaches are highly effective in practice, it remains an open question whether an agent can autonomously discover useful theorems without such human priors. We study this question in a formal axiomatic system by developing an agent that starts from axioms and inference rules alone and gradually grows a library of useful theorems. Concretely, we propose a self-supervised theorem-discovery algorithm that alternates between proof search and useful-theorem extraction, building a theorem library whose entries are reused as lemmas for subsequent proof search. Experiments show that the agent discovers tens of thousands of theorems and finds proofs for human-written benchmark problems, suggesting that its discoveries include theorems meaningful from a human mathematical perspective. Furthermore, the discovered theorems improve LLM proof performance when provided as prompt lemmas, indicating that they can serve as external knowledge for LLM reasoning. Our results provide evidence that useful theorems can emerge from proof search without relying on human-provided theorem libraries. More broadly, they suggest a path toward self-evolving AI systems for mathematics whose discoveries remain formally verifiable.

The axiom of choice has divided the foundations of mathematics for over a century, but the distinction between classical and constructive proofs has remained a philosophical and methodological one. We use Lean 4's kernel-level tracking of axiom dependence to show that the axiom of choice has a measurable geometric correlate in proof space that obeys a one-parameter mixture law and has operational consequences for neural theorem provers. To do this, we partition $471{,}260$ declarations of Mathlib by transitive dependence on the axiom of choice and represent a filtered population of $42{,}355$ traced theorems by their sequences of tactic invocations. We use the constructive proofs in this dataset to train a self-supervised proof encoder and show that when using it to measure classical proofs, three complementary measurements (anomaly score, reconstruction loss, and density-superlevel containment) exhibit a common decline with the proof's distance from the axiom in the dependency graph, from sharp separation at the shallow boundary (AUC $0.847$ at distance $2$) to indistinguishability at distance~$9{+}$. Robustness controls show that the signature survives length, file, author, and topic controls, and replicates under full-source encoders trained on normalised proof source. Operationally, we show that on an evaluation sample of $251$ Mathlib theorems, Lean's \texttt{aesop} tactic solves constructive theorems at $13\times$ the rate of classical ones, and a neural-guided hybrid using the ReProver tactic generator compresses the gap to $5\times$. The geometric anomaly score predicts \texttt{aesop} failure beyond proof length, providing an operational link between the geometric signature and prover performance.

This theoretical note studies the finite axiomatizability of strict majority reasoning in finite social decision frames. Moss and Pedersen (2026) <doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.23853> introduce a coherence criterion that characterizes exactly when qualitative majority judgments are representable by a finitely additive measure. The question addressed here is whether that coherence criterion can be replaced, in the finite setting, by any bounded finite fragment. We prove that it cannot. For every $k\ge 1$, we construct a maximal standard frame whose shortest coherence violation has length exactly $2k+2$. Hence there is no uniform finite bound on the incoherence index of social decision frames, resolving Conjecture 5.7 stated by Moss and Pedersen (2026). The construction is geometric, in the sense that it proceeds via orthogonality and dimension in rational vector spaces, and self-contained: it isolates a symmetric family of half-sized voting blocs and extends it to a maximal frame in which every shorter balanced obstruction is excluded. Along the explicit infinite sequence of universe sizes obtained in the construction, this also establishes the middle-layer family predicted by Conjecture B.25 by Moss and Pedersen (2026). Together with the soundness and completeness theorem for the Moss-Pedersen minimal logic for strict majorities, this establishes that measurable social decision frames are not finitely axiomatizable in that language.

This paper studies strict majority reasoning in finite electorates using so-called $\textit{social decision frames}$: finite sets of voters equipped with distinguished families of coalitions interpreted as those voting blocs evaluated to form a strict majority. A coherence criterion for qualitative majority judgments is identified and shown to give an exact characterization for representability of strict majorities by finitely additive measures. In addition, a minimal natural logic for reasoning about strict majorities is shown to be sound and complete. These developments motivate examination of associated combinatorial questions concerning incoherence in finite families of sets; partial results and a conjecture are given. Finally, the results of this paper are applied to correct a classical representation theorem for weak qualitative probability structures due to Patrick Suppes and to establish a May-type characterization for ordinary strict majority rule for social decision frames.

We present AXIOM, a trust-first neuro-symbolic execution architecture for natural-language mathematical reasoning. In AXIOM, the language model functions strictly as a canonicalizer: it rewrites informal problem text into a narrow schema consumed by a deterministic Computer-Algebra-System (CAS) pipeline, which derives and verifies the answer or abstains as a first-class output. Routing follows a 1:1:1 alignment between problem-shape regex, schema-specific prompt, and closed-form CAS handler, with 3,100+ such routes shipped and zero LOST_CORRECT regressions across 250+ consecutive ship commits. We report empirical results on 4 MATH categories with a cumulative correctness of 94.36% (2,592/2,747) at 100.00% trust on parseable (zero confident-wrong answers across the full 2,747-record benchmark), all four domains above the per-domain 70/90/70 floor with per-domain trust at 100.0%, and median latency of 1 ms on rule-only handlers (88% of records on the lm-eval arithmetic 20,000-record benchmark). The architecture has served ~30,000 production queries through a public deployment. The contribution we emphasize is not a final accuracy figure but the forward dynamic the architecture establishes: every logged abstain in production is a candidate correct after one ship cycle, since new tasks compose without regressing the registry. The operational discipline behind this property -- math-template bucketing, LOST_CORRECT scan as regression oracle, parseable-first onboarding, and abstain as first-class output -- constitutes a transferable framework for trustworthy neuro-symbolic systems beyond mathematics.

Problem formulation translating customer needs and constraints into a minimum set of independent first-level functional requirements, is arguably the most critical step in every design framework, including axiomatic design yet it is frequently misunderstood or underestimated in practice. This paper focuses exclusively on problem formulation in axiomatic design it clarifies what first-level FRs are (and are not), explains why they should not legitimately vary across designers given the same needs and constraints, and highlights intrinsic difficulties and recurring pitfalls that lead to design failure. The discussion is grounded primarily in Nam P.Suh's three books. The Principles of Design, Axiomatic Design Advances and Applications, and Complexity Theory, and it offers practical guidance to help designers formulate well-posed first-level FRs. Finally, the paper briefly revisits problem formulation in the era of large language models and discusses what such tools can (and cannot) contribute at the first level.

Judgment aggregation studies how to combine individual judgments on logically related propositions into a collective judgment. Classical impossibility results show that sufficiently strong logical interconnections force dictatorship under natural aggregation axioms. In this paper, we ask whether such impossibility can still arise when the objects of aggregation are required to be genuinely modal judgments rather than plain factual propositions. Since modal logic contains propositional logic, this question is meaningful only if one excludes fact-based aggregation in disguise. We show that Arrow-type impossibility already re-emerges in a strikingly sparse modal setting. We prove an impossibility theorem on a simple cyclic frame for an agenda generated from a single propositional variable by repeated applications of a single modal operator, and we further demonstrate this phenomenon for an alternative family of frames satisfying a natural symmetry condition. Thus, even under a modal-operator requirement, semantic structure alone can generate the logical interconnections needed for dictatorship. Technically, our analysis has two layers. First, we prove a semantic reduction theorem showing that certain iterated modal patterns can be collapsed by shifting the evaluation point. Second, building on this reduction, we identify a local-to-global frame mechanism by which frame geometry yields minimally inconsistent modal judgment sets and the strong path-connectivity required for impossibility. The same reduction also turns consistency checking into a small combinatorial covering problem, which yields efficient implementations of non-dictatorial aggregation procedures.

We present a framework for verifying the deterministic structured computations surrounding a large language model rather than the model itself, extending a Lean 4 trust-boundary architecture to the generic interfaces of modern LLM pipelines. Certificate validity is a Lean 4 kernel type-check plus a sorry-free transitive axiom audit against the trusted set {propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound}; other assumptions are declared and partitioned by tier (mathematical placeholders, cryptographic assumptions, ML/human oracles). The technical contribution comprises three local certificate families and two operators. The families are conflict-aware bilattice grounding (with an emission-gate soundness lemma), embedding sensitivity and paraphrase stability, and Hoare-style agent action. The operators are a Maximal Certifiable Residue, which turns abstention into the maximum-weight certifiable residue with audit-logged dropped claims, and a Compositional Stability theorem, which yields a closed-form pipeline-wide perturbation budget from per-layer gains and margins. The three families plus a Universal Assurance Card consolidator form the per-call deliverable for high-stakes deployments: patent and legal retrieval, regulated finance, clinical decision support, and agentic systems with irreversible side effects. A compiled Lean 4 reference artifact (Lean v4.30.0-rc2, Mathlib) covers all 22 certificate types, with 17 of 46 kernel-audited declarations axiom-free, the rest depending only on the trusted set and declared assumptions, and zero uses of sorryAx or Lean.ofReduceBool. The three families are empirically tested through four registered pilots: bilattice grounding on adversarially perturbed HotpotQA, embedding sensitivity in short- and long-form settings, and Hoare-style agent action on a filesystem sandbox with adversarial prompt injection.

We study proportional representation in the temporal voting model, where collective decisions are made repeatedly over time over a fixed horizon. Prior work has extensively investigated how proportional representation axioms from multiwinner voting (e.g., justified representation (JR) and its variants) can be adapted, satisfied, and verified in this setting. However, much less is understood about their interaction with social welfare. In this work, we quantify the efficiency cost of enforcing proportionality. We formalize the welfare-proportionality tension via the worst-case ratio between the maximum achievable utilitarian welfare and the maximum welfare attainable subject to a proportionality axiom. We show that imposing proportional representation in the temporal setting can incur a growing, yet sublinear, welfare loss as the number of voters or rounds increases. We further identify a clean separation among axioms: for JR, the welfare loss diminishes as the time horizon grows and vanishes asymptotically, whereas for stronger axioms this conflict persists even with many rounds. Moreover, we prove that welfare maximization under each axiom is NP-complete and APX-hard, even under static preferences and bounded-degree approvals, and provide fixed-parameter algorithms under several natural structural parameters.

Machine learning algorithms are being used in high-stakes decisions, including those in criminal justice, healthcare, credit, and employment. The research community has responded with two largely independent research fields: \emph{algorithmic fairness}, which targets equitable outcomes, and \emph{explainable AI} (XAI), which targets interpretable reasoning. This survey identifies and maps a novel blind spot at their intersection, which is a model that can satisfy every standard fairness criterion in its outputs while being profoundly unfair in its \emph{reasoning process}. We refer to this as the procedural bias, and mitigating it requires treating the fairness of explanations as a distinct object of scientific study. To our knowledge, we provide the first unified theoretical and literature review of this emerging field and elucidate the drawbacks of post-hoc explainers in certifying explanation fairness. Our central contribution is a \emph{conditional invariance framework} formalizing explanation fairness as the requirement that explanations should be indifferent regardless of the protected attributes $P(E(X) \in \cdot \mid X_\text{rel} = x_\text{rel},\, A = a) = P(E(X) \in \cdot \mid X_\text{rel} = x_\text{rel},\, A = b)$ for all task-relevant $x$, a single principle from which all existing explanation fairness metrics emerge as partial operationalizations. We introduce a seven-dimensional taxonomy, identify three generative mechanisms of explanation inequity (representation-driven, explanation-model mismatch, actionability-driven), and propose a canonical six-step evaluation workflow for operationalizing explanation fairness audits in practice.

We introduce an axiomatic evaluation framework for latent thought representations in LLMs, comprising metrics that are independent of downstream benchmark scores and reveal representational failures that benchmark accuracy masks. Existing evaluations conflate representation quality with model capacity. Therefore, failures cannot be attributed to the representation rather than to the model that processes it. We formalize four functional axioms (Causality, Minimality, Separability, and Stability) and define a quantitative measure for each, computed directly on the representation independently of downstream accuracy. We audit open-weight LLMs across 23 reasoning tasks (e.g., Spatial Reasoning, Factual QA). We find that no candidate satisfies all four axioms simultaneously, that the representations distinguish task type reliably but cannot distinguish between two questions within the same task, and that the representations encode little information beyond what is already present in the input embedding. The failure is consistent across dense, reasoning-distilled, and RL-trained model families, indicating that the gap is structural rather than a property of model size or training procedure.

There has been a growing interest in explaining entailments over description logic (DL) knowledge bases. The existing explanation formalisms focus on justifications to explain true axioms, and abductive reasoning to explain missing axioms in a knowledge base. However, these formalisms only point out the reasoning steps behind a (missing) entailment and lack a user-centered approach as they do not consider an inquirer's needs, level of understanding, or prior knowledge. We propose contrastive explanations, aiming at answering "why an axiom P (fact) is true instead of another axiom Q (foil)" over description logic knowledge bases. The motivation arises from the observation that when a user discovers that P has occurred, they are often surprised because they anticipated the occurrence of another similar event Q. Furthermore, individual explanations for "why P" and "why not Q" are unsatisfactory since a user expects to see the difference between P and Q. In this work, we first present formal foundations of contrasting questions and then define contrastive explanations within description logics. To this end, facts include ABox assertions of the form C(x) for a concept C and individual x. Possible foils for such facts are assertions C(y) (contrasting against an individual y), or D(x) (contrasting against a concept D). Additionally, we explore the properties of contrastive explanations in the DL EL and ALC. We also provide an implementation of our definition and an experimental evaluation on KBs of varying sizes.

We present an algebraic semantics for governed execution in which governance is axiomatized, compositional, and coterminous with expressibility. The framework, mechanized in 32 Rocq modules (~12,000 lines, 454 theorems, 0 admitted), is built on interaction trees and parameterized coinduction. A three-axiom GovernanceAlgebra record (safety, transparency, properness) induces a symmetric monoidal category with verified pentagon, triangle, and hexagon coherence, where every tensor composition preserves governance. An algebraic effect system constrains the handler algebra so that only governance-preserving handlers can be constructed in the safe fragment; programs in the empty capability set provably emit only observability directives. Capability-indexed composition bundles programs with machine-checked capability bounds, and a dual guarantee theorem establishes that within_caps and gov_safe hold simultaneously under all composition operators. The capstone result is the coterminous boundary: within our formal model, every program expressible via the four primitive morphism constructors is governed under interpretation, and every governed program is the image of such a program. Turing completeness is preserved inside governance; unmediated I/O is excluded from the governed fragment. Governance denial is modeled as safe coinductive divergence. The governance algebra is parametric: any system instantiating the three axioms inherits all derived properties, including convergence, compositional closure, and goal preservation. Extracted OCaml runs as a NIF in the BEAM runtime, with property-based testing (70,000+ random inputs, zero disagreements) confirming behavioral equivalence between the specification and the runtime interpreter.

Rational belief revision is commonly viewed as being based on a preference order between possible worlds, with the resulting new belief set being those sentences true in all the most preferred models of the incoming new information. Usually, such a preference order is taken to be a total preorder. Nevertheless, there are other, more general classes of ordering that can also be employed. In this paper, we explore two such classes that have been studied within the theory of rational choice but have seen limited or no application in belief revision. We begin with interval orders, introduced by Fishburn in the '80s, which associate with each possible world a nonnegative interval' of plausibility. We then move on to biorders, studied by Aleskerov, Bouyssou, and Monjardet, which generalise interval orders by allowing the intervals to have negative lengths, a feature that can be used to capture a notion of dissonance or instability. We provide axiomatic characterisations of these two resulting families of belief revision operators, as well as of two further families of interest that lie between interval orders and biorders. We show that while biorder-based revisions satisfy the Success postulate, they do not always yield consistent outputs. By modifying their definition to discard inputs that lead to inconsistency as incredible', we derive new families of so-called non-prioritised revision that satisfy the Consistency postulate, but not the Success one. These families are linked to credibility-limited revision operators of Hansson et al., but for which the set of credible sentences does not satisfy the single-sentence closure condition. We argue that the biorder-based approach is well-suited for scenarios where an agent might initially reject new information, but may accept it when presented with additional explanation.

Formal verification guarantees proof validity but not formalization faithfulness. For natural-language logical reasoning, where models construct axiom systems from scratch without library constraints, this gap between valid proofs and faithful translations is especially acute. We investigate whether frontier models exploit this gap when generating Lean 4 proofs, a behavior we term formalization gaming. We evaluate GPT-5 and DeepSeek-R1 on 303 first-order logic problems (203 from FOLIO, 100 from Multi-LogiEval), comparing unified generation against a two-stage pipeline that separates formalization from proving. Despite compilation rates of 87-99%, we find no evidence of systematic gaming in unified generation: models prefer reporting failure over forcing proofs, even under prompting designed to encourage it. However, unfaithfulness that evades our detection signals may still occur. The two-stage pipeline reveals two distinct modes of unfaithfulness: GPT-5 fabricates axioms during proof generation, a reactive fallback detectable via cross-stage comparison, while DeepSeek-R1 mistranslates premises during formalization, producing internally consistent outputs that evade detection entirely. These findings show that high compilation rates or accuracies should not be equated with faithful reasoning. Code and data are available at https://github.com/koreankiwi99/formalization-gaming.

Knowledge representation formalisms are aimed to represent general conceptual information and are typically used in the construction of the knowledge base of reasoning agent. A knowledge base can be thought of as representing the beliefs of such an agent. Like a child, a strong-AI (AGI) robot would have to learn through input and experiences, constantly progressing and advancing its abilities over time. Both with statistical AI generated by neural networks we need also the concept of \textsl{causality} of events traduced into directionality of logic entailments and deductions in order to give to robots the emulation of human intelligence. Moreover, by using the axioms we can guarantee the \textsl{controlled security} about robot's actions based on logic inferences. For AGI robots we consider the 4-valued Belnap's bilattice of truth-values with knowledge ordering as well, where the value "unknown" is the bottom value, the sentences with this value are indeed unknown facts, that is, the missed knowledge in the AGI robots. Thus, these unknown facts are not part of the robot's knowledge database, and by learn through input and experiences, the robot's knowledge would be naturally expanded over time. Consequently, this phenomena can be represented by the Closed Knowledge Assumption and Logic Inference provided by this paper. Moreover, the truth-value "inconsistent", which is the top value in the knowledge ordering of Belnap's bilattice, is necessary for strong-AI robots to be able to support such inconsistent information and paradoxes, like Liar paradox, during deduction processes.

Two deep ReLU networks can have entirely different architectures and parameters, yet realize the same function. We provide a complete characterization of this nonuniqueness. This is effected by building a symbolic calculus for deep ReLU networks, equivalence and simplification of networks becoming derivation of formulae, in close parallel to Shannon's analysis of switching circuits through Boolean logic. Inspired by Shannon, who turned circuit synthesis into the manipulation of Boolean formulae by the axioms of Boolean algebra, we turn ReLU network identification into the derivation of Łukasiewicz formulae by the axioms of many-valued (MV) logic. Two non-degenerate ReLU networks realize the same function on the unit cube if and only if one is obtained from the other by finitely many applications of the MV axioms for integer weights and biases, the divisible MV axioms for rational ones, and the Riesz MV axioms for real ones. The MV logic axioms characterize all symmetries of ReLU networks, the single-layer ones, which for tanh networks are the only kind, and the deep ones, spanning three or more layers. Our framework consists of three steps, an extraction algorithm turning a network into a substitution graph, whose represented formula has the network's input-output map as its truth function, a completeness theorem, by which functionally equivalent formulae are interderivable, and a construction algorithm returning from graphs to networks. The substitution graph is layered, carrying at each node a formula in the variables of the layer feeding it, encodes the network uniquely, and induces a new normal form for MV logic, compositional rather than flat as in the literature, hence retaining the algebraic structure of the network, with three local operations--node rewrite, layer collapse, layer expansion--realizing every derivation.

Coordination research collapses four objects: operative control, authorization, a model-derived friction score, and observed outcomes. The Axiom of Consent is a stake-weighted unanimity principle; majority and supermajority thresholds are explicit relaxations, not versions of the axiom. Decision loci are structural facts, whereas authorization and legitimacy require normative and measurement premises. Alignment, calibrated stakes, and information deficit are candidate coordinates, and F = sigma(1 + epsilon)/(1 + alpha) is a phenomenological ansatz. The Replicator-Optimization Mechanism supplies a conditional persistence interface: irreducibility suffices for its finite, static, positive-fitness continuous-time Perron result; primitivity is required only for the corresponding discrete-time power convergence, and the componentwise ranking is narrower. Neither persistence result derives authorization. A resource-allocation instantiation specifies an identification contract but observes no authorization acts or effective voice. Its exploratory MARL companion uses target-vector correlation and observation noise as narrow proxy treatments, not measures of general alignment or information deficit. Under that proxy and reward-gap design, the composite loses to an independent-effects model and a feasible-centred frozen crossing yields the opposite interaction direction. Cooperative target correlation lowers the gap under shared-state contention; separable IQL is structurally invariant and separable VDN is a non-detection. Paired partial sharing modulates the gradient without establishing an exact dose law or endpoint equivalence. Target support changes opposition and residual-policy conclusions. The surviving contribution is an authorization architecture and measurement discipline, not a universal friction law.

We investigate a logic for asynchronous announcements wherein the sending of the messages by the environment is separated from their reception by the individual agents. Both come with different modalities. In the logical semantics, formulas are interpreted in a world of a Kripke model but given a history of prior announcements and receptions that already happened. An axiomatisation AA for such a logic has been given in prior work, for the formulas that are valid when interpreted in the Kripke model before any such announcements have taken place. This axiomatisation is a reduction system wherein one can show that every formula is equivalent to a purely epistemic formula without dynamic modalities for announcements and receptions. We propose a generalisation AA* of this axiomatisation, for the formulas that are valid when interpreted in the Kripke model given any history of prior announcements and receptions of announcements. It does not extend the axiomatisation AA, for example it is no longer valid that nobody has received any message. Unlike AA, this axiomatisation AA* is infinitary and it is not a reduction system.

Originating in game theory, Shapley values are widely used for explaining a machine learning model's prediction by quantifying the contribution of each feature's value to the prediction. This requires a scalar prediction as in binary classification, whereas a multiclass probabilistic prediction is a discrete probability distribution, living on a multidimensional simplex. In such a multiclass setting the Shapley values are typically computed separately on each class in a one-vs-rest manner, ignoring the compositional nature of the output distribution. In this paper, we introduce Shapley compositions as a well-founded way to properly explain a multiclass probabilistic prediction, using the Aitchison geometry from compositional data analysis. We prove that the Shapley composition is the unique quantity satisfying linearity, symmetry and efficiency on the Aitchison simplex, extending the corresponding axiomatic properties of the standard Shapley value. We demonstrate this proper multiclass treatment in a range of scenarios.

In recent years, there has been a surge in effort to formalize notions of fairness in machine learning. We focus on centroid clustering--one of the fundamental tasks in unsupervised machine learning. We propose a new axiom ``proportionally representative fairness'' (PRF) that is designed for clustering problems where the selection of centroids reflects the distribution of data points and how tightly they are clustered together. Our fairness concept is not satisfied by existing fair clustering algorithms. We design efficient algorithms to achieve PRF both for unconstrained and discrete clustering problems. Our algorithm for the unconstrained setting is also the first known polynomial-time approximation algorithm for the well-studied Proportional Fairness (PF) axiom. Our algorithm for the discrete setting also matches the best known approximation factor for PF.