PreprintCited by 175Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Neural-Symbolic Computing: An Effective Methodology for Principled Integration of Machine Learning and Reasoning

Open access
Garcez, Artur d'Avila, Gori, Marco, Lamb, Luis C., Serafini, Luciano, Spranger, Michael, Tran, Son N.·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Current advances in Artificial Intelligence and machine learning in general, and deep learning in particular have reached unprecedented impact not only across research communities, but also over popular media channels. However, concerns about interpretability and accountability of AI have been raised by influential thinkers. In spite of the recent impact of AI, several works have identified the need for principled knowledge representation and reasoning mechanisms integrated with deep learning-based systems to provide sound and explainable models for such systems. Neural-symbolic computing aims at integrating, as foreseen by Valiant, two most fundamental cognitive abilities: the ability to learn from the environment, and the ability to reason from what has been learned. Neural-symbolic computing has been an active topic of research for many years, reconciling the advantages of robust learning in neural networks and reasoning and interpretability of symbolic representation. In this paper, we survey recent accomplishments of neural-symbolic computing as a principled methodology for integrated machine learning and reasoning. We illustrate the effectiveness of the approach by outlining the main characteristics of the methodology: principled integration of neural learning with symbolic knowledge representation and reasoning allowing for the construction of explainable AI systems. The insights provided by neural-symbolic computing shed new light on the increasingly prominent need for interpretable and accountable AI systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1905.06088

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 52 · Cited by 175

Authors
Garcez, A. D., Gori, M., Lamb, L. C., Serafini, L., Spranger, M., & Tran, S. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Siena (IT)
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
611-631
OpenAlex
W2946752867
Cited by
175
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 8
FWCI
12.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • UTAS Research Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
explainable AI, knowledge representation, symbolic reasoning, interpretability, AI accountability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review