A semantic framework for neurosymbolic computation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of neurosymbolic AI aims to benefit from the combination of neural networks and symbolic systems. A cornerstone of the field is the translation or encoding of symbolic knowledge into neural networks . Although many neurosymbolic methods and approaches have been proposed, and with a large increase in recent years, no common definition of encoding exists that can enable a precise, theoretical comparison of neurosymbolic methods. This paper addresses this problem by introducing a semantic framework for neurosymbolic AI. We start by providing a formal definition of semantic encoding , specifying the components and conditions under which a knowledge-base can be encoded correctly by a neural network. We then show that many neurosymbolic approaches are accounted for by this definition. We provide a number of examples and correspondence proofs applying the proposed framework to the neural encoding of various forms of knowledge representation. Many, at first sight disparate, neurosymbolic methods, are shown to fall within the proposed formalization. This is expected to provide guidance to future neurosymbolic encodings by placing them in the broader context of semantic encodings of entire families of existing neurosymbolic systems. The paper hopes to help initiate a discussion around the provision of a theory for neurosymbolic AI and a semantics for deep learning .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".