Logical Reasoning

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 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 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.

Reasoning about actual causes of observed effects is fundamental to the study of rationality. This important problem has been studied since the time of Aristotle, with formal mathematical accounts emerging recently. We live in a world where change due to actions can be both discrete and continuous, that is, hybrid. Yet, despite extensive research on actual causation, only few recent studies looked into causation with continuous change. Building on recent progress, in this paper we propose two definitions of primary cause in a hybrid action-theoretic framework, namely the hybrid temporal situation calculus. One of these is foundational in nature while the other formalizes causation through contributions, which can then be verified from a counterfactual perspective using a modified ``but-for'' test. We prove that these two definitions are indeed equivalent. We then show that our definitions of causation have some intuitively justifiable properties.

Recent years have witnessed meteoric progress in reasoning models: neural networks that generate intermediate reasoning traces (RTs) before producing a final output. Despite the rapid advancement, our understanding of how RTs support reasoning, and the limits of this paradigm, remain incomplete. To promote greater clarity, we introduce PITA: a novel large-scale dataset of over 23 million statements in propositional logic and their corresponding proofs. As a benchmark for robust reasoning, we focus on length generalization: if a model is trained to determine truth or falsity on statements with proofs up to fixed length, how well does it generalize to statements requiring longer proofs? We propose notions of (1) task depth and (2) task breadth, which measure respectively (1) the number of steps required to solve an example from a task and (2) the number of unique examples across a task. We vary these quantities across subsets of PITA, and find that RT models generalize well on broad and shallow subsets, while deteriorating on narrow and deep subsets relative to non-RT baselines. To determine whether our results are idiosyncratic to PITA or indicative of general phenomena, we compare our results to a simple synthetic task based on syllogisms. Our resulting theory suggests fundamental scalings that limit how well RT models perform on deep tasks, and highlights their generalization strengths on broad tasks. Our findings overall identify fundamental benefits and limitations inherent in using reasoning traces.

Decidability or complexity issues about the consistency problem for description logics with concrete domains have already been analysed with tableaux-based or type elimination methods. Concrete domains in ontologies are essential to consider concrete objects and predefined relations. In this work, we expose an automata-based approach leading to the optimal upper bound EXPTIME, that is designed by enriching the transitions with symbolic constraints. We show that the nonemptiness problem for such automata belongs to EXPTIME if the concrete domains satisfy a few simple properties. Then, we provide a reduction from the consistency problem for ontologies, yielding EXPTIME-membership. Thanks to the expressivity of constraint automata, the results are extended to additional ingredients such as inverse roles, functional role names and constraint assertions, while maintaining EXPTIME-membership, which illustrates the robustness of the approach

Language models frequently produce plausible yet incorrect reasoning traces that are difficult to verify. We investigate fine-tuning models to use Prolog as an external symbolic reasoning tool, training Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) on a cleaned version of GSM8K (which we release as gsm8k-prolog-prover). We systematically vary prompt structure, reward composition (execution, syntax, semantics, structure), and inference protocol (single-try, multiple-try, and two agentic modes). Our reinforcement learning approach outperforms supervised fine-tuning on GSM8K, and the resulting 3B model achieves zero-shot performance on MMLU-STEM and MMLU-Pro competitive with 7B few-shot baselines. Most importantly, we identify an accuracy--auditability trade-off: configurations tuned for correctness alone learn to delegate reasoning to natural language and use Prolog only for the final computation, while configurations rewarded for symbolic structure produce fully auditable programs at a cost in accuracy. We interpret this trade-off as a form of reward hacking and discuss its implications for deploying neurosymbolic systems in safety-critical domains. The source code for our experiments is available under https://github.com/aisilab/Prolog-as-a-Tool

Neural Networks are indispensable to natural sciences and society. Their impact extends from applications in public health to workforce productivity. Here, we introduce Modal Logic Neural Networks (MLNNs) -- an end-to-end differentiable logical neural network realisation of modal logic which evaluates a learnable truth function across possible-world semantics. This neural architecture handles para-consistency and inconsistency via a learnable world accessibility relation and valuation function. Because the modality is fixed by which frame axioms the relation satisfies rather than by the operator, one differentiable engine covers the epistemic, doxastic, deontic and temporal readings, with applications from verification of reactive and distributed systems to legal discourse and microeconomic utility models. In this paper, we introduce a model of differentiable Kripke semantics, and establish their soundness, convergence, and structural guarantees. We show four applications, in which the learned relation reads as a trust matrix, an operating-regime embedding with safety bounds, a temporal precedence order, and a recovered constraint graph.

We create high-quality datasets for LLM evaluation of logical reasoning skills across nine different languages, which have been manually checked by fluent speakers. The datasets consist of so-called zebra puzzles, and we analyse different ways of tuning the difficulty of the puzzles to fit modern LLMs. This includes the size of the puzzle (number of objects and number of clues), as well as a novel addition of red herring clues containing only irrelevant information. We show that presence of red herrings indeed makes the puzzles significantly harder for the models, and we find puzzle sizes 2x3 and 4x5 are sufficiently challenging for GPT-4o mini (a non-reasoning model) and o3-mini (a reasoning model), respectively. We analyse whether LLM performance of these are sensitive to the language, the cultural sensitivity of the puzzle theme, and the choice of clue types. These analyses are conducted with English and Danish, where we show that there is no significant difference for either of these three aspects, at least for the OpenAI models GPT-4o mini and o3-mini, chosen as representative non-reasoning and reasoning models, respectively. We publish the datasets for each of the nine languages for the identified sizes 2x3 and 4x5. We also publish the code used to generate the puzzles, which can be used to extend the benchmark into more languages.

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.

Although many benchmarks evaluate the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) within domains such as mathematics, coding, or data wrangling, few abstract away from domain specifics to examine reasoning as a capability in and of itself. We contribute a novel type of benchmark evaluating the inductive reasoning capabilities of LLMs that is inspired by the forward reconstruction task from historical linguistics but is formulated in an extremely simple, general way (in the form of Programming by Examples). The task involves generating a cascade of simple string rewrite programs to transform a given list of input strings into a list of desired output strings. We present a fully automated pipeline that programmatically generates problems of this type with controllable difficulty, enabling scalable evaluation of reasoning models while avoiding contamination. Using this approach, we construct two benchmarks: PBEBench-Lite, which efficiently stratifies models of varying capabilities, and PBEBench, which requires models to induce programs similar in complexity to those constructed by historical linguists. Our experiments reveal a substantial performance gap between models that leverage test-time compute or LCoT (long chain-of-thought) reasoning and those that do not. Moreover, although recent models show promise, the solve rate for both of them drops below 5% for hard instances of the PBEBench dataset (ground truth cascade lengths of 20 and 30, respectively), falling well short of realistic historical linguistics requirements even with computationally expensive, popular scaling techniques from the PBE and reasoning literature. Additionally, we also study the effectiveness of different scaling strategies and the impact of various hyperparameters on the difficulty of the generated data using gpt-oss-120b, the best-performing open-source model.

Semantic reasoning aims to infer new knowledge from existing knowledge, with OWL ontologies serving as a standardized framework for organizing information. A key challenge in semantic reasoning is verifying ontology consistency. However, state-of-the-art reasoners are computationally expensive, and their efficiency decreases as ontology sizes grow. While classical machine learning models have been explored for consistency checking of A-Box axioms, considering T-Boxes remains unaddressed. Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising results for natural language inference but perform poorly on logical reasoning. The recently introduced Graph Language Model (GLM) offers a way to simultaneously process graph-structured data and text. This paper proposes GLaMoR (Graph Language Model for Reasoning), a reasoning pipeline that transforms OWL ontologies into graph-structured data and adapts the GLM architecture for consistency checking. We evaluate GLaMoR on ontologies from the NCBO BioPortal repository, converting them into triples suitable for model input. Our results show that the GLM outperforms all baseline models, achieving $95\%$ accuracy, and is $20$ times faster than classical reasoners.

DatalogMTL is a powerful rule-based language for temporal reasoning. Due to its high expressive power and flexible modeling capabilities, it is suitable for a wide range of applications, including tasks from industrial and financial sectors. However, due to its high computational complexity, practical reasoning in DatalogMTL is highly challenging. To address this difficulty, we introduce a new reasoning method for DatalogMTL which exploits the magic sets technique -- a rewriting approach developed for (non-temporal) Datalog to simulate top-down evaluation with bottom-up reasoning. We have implemented this approach and evaluated it on publicly available benchmarks, showing that the proposed approach significantly and consistently outperformed state-of-the-art reasoning techniques.

Representing time is crucial for cyber-physical systems and has been studied extensively in the situation calculus. The most commonly used approach represents time by adding a real-valued function $\mathit{time}(a)$ that attaches a time point to each action and consequently to each situation. We show that in this approach, checking whether there is a reachable situation that satisfies a given formula is undecidable, even when the domain contains only finitely many objects. We present an alternative approach based on well-established results from timed automata theory by introducing clocks as real-valued fluents with restricted successor state axioms and comparison operators. With this restriction, we can show that the reachability problem for finite-domain basic action theories is decidable. Finally, we apply our results to Golog program realization by presenting a decidable procedure for determining an action sequence that is a successful execution of a given program.

In this paper, we explore the issue of inconsistency handling over prioritized knowledge bases (KBs), which consist of an ontology, a set of facts, and a priority relation between conflicting facts. In the database setting, a closely related scenario has been studied and led to the definition of three different notions of optimal repairs (global, Pareto, and completion) of a prioritized inconsistent database. After transferring the notions of globally-, Pareto- and completion-optimal repairs to our setting, we study the data complexity of the core reasoning tasks: query entailment under inconsistency-tolerant semantics based upon optimal repairs, existence of a unique optimal repair, and enumeration of all optimal repairs. Our results provide a nearly complete picture of the data complexity of these tasks for ontologies formulated in common DL-Lite dialects. The second contribution of our work is to clarify the relationship between optimal repairs and different notions of extensions for (set-based) argumentation frameworks. Among our results, we show that Pareto-optimal repairs correspond precisely to stable extensions (and often also to preferred extensions), and we propose a novel semantics for prioritized KBs which is inspired by grounded extensions and enjoys favourable computational properties. Our study also yields some results of independent interest concerning preference-based argumentation frameworks.