对比三大神经符号框架,揭示其能力边界与设计挑战
Neuro-Symbolic Frameworks: Conceptual Characterization and Empirical Comparative Analysis
- 提出三类通用神经符号框架的系统性比较方法
- 发现多数研究重算法轻框架,缺乏统一问题描述机制
- 适合对可解释AI、符号推理感兴趣的开发者和研究者
神经符号(NeSy)框架将神经表示与学习能力,与符号表示与推理相结合。通过融合符号处理的推理能力、可解释性与神经计算的灵活性,可在数据效率更高的情况下解决复杂问题。然而该领域发展迅速,但缺乏用户友好工具、库和统一框架,给开发者带来学习门槛。本文系统刻画现有NeSy框架的技术特征,包括符号表示语言、与神经模型的集成方式及底层算法。大多数研究集中于算法开发,而非提供用于声明式问题建模的通用框架。为此,我们以DeepProbLog、Scallop和DomiKnowS三个典型框架为例,分析其在各技术维度上的优势与局限,为理解不同框架在解决问题时的表达能力奠定基础。旨在推动社区重新思考该问题的创新路径。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Neurosymbolic (NeSy) frameworks combine neural representations and learning with symbolic representations and reasoning. Combining the reasoning capacities, explainability, and interpretability of symbolic processing with the flexibility and power of neural computing allows us to solve complex problems with more reliability while being data-efficient. However, this recently growing topic poses a challenge to developers with its learning curve, lack of user-friendly tools, libraries, and unifying frameworks. In this paper, we characterize the technical facets of existing NeSy frameworks, such as the symbolic representation language, integration with neural models, and the underlying algorithms. A majority of the NeSy research focuses on algorithms instead of providing generic frameworks for declarative problem specification to leverage problem solving. To highlight the key aspects of Neurosymbolic modeling, we showcase three generic NeSy frameworks - \textit{DeepProbLog}, \textit{Scallop}, and \textit{DomiKnowS}. We identify the challenges within each facet that lay the foundation for identifying the expressivity of each framework in solving a variety of problems. Building on this foundation, we aim to spark transformative action and encourage the community to rethink this problem in novel ways.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。