MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1538134818 · doi:10.13140/2.1.1779.4243

Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning: Contributions and Challenges

2015· article· en· W1538134818 on OpenAlexaff
Artur d’Avila Garcez, Tarek R. Besold, Luc De Raedt, Péter Földiák, Pascal Hitzler, Thomas Icard, Kai‐Uwe Kühnberger, Luís C. Lamb, Risto Miikkulainen, Daniel Silver

Bibliographic record

VenueCity Research Online (City University London) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnectionismComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkRepresentation (politics)ComputationKnowledge representation and reasoningSymbolic-numeric computationKey (lock)Models of neural computationThe SymbolicCognitive scienceMachine learningProgramming languagePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of neural-symbolic computation is to integrate ro-bust connectionist learning and sound symbolic reasoning. With the recent advances in connectionist learning, in par-ticular deep neural networks, forms of representation learn-ing have emerged. However, such representations have not become useful for reasoning. Results from neural-symbolic computation have shown to offer powerful alternatives for knowledge representation, learning and reasoning in neural computation. This paper recalls the main contributions and discusses key challenges for neural-symbolic integration which have been identified at a recent Dagstuhl seminar. 1.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.027
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations127
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCity Research Online (City University London)Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207