Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
124 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
8 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
47 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Not All Neuro-Symbolic Concepts Are Created Equal: Analysis and Mitigation of Reasoning Shortcuts (2305.19951v2)

Published 31 May 2023 in cs.LG and stat.ML

Abstract: Neuro-Symbolic (NeSy) predictive models hold the promise of improved compliance with given constraints, systematic generalization, and interpretability, as they allow to infer labels that are consistent with some prior knowledge by reasoning over high-level concepts extracted from sub-symbolic inputs. It was recently shown that NeSy predictors are affected by reasoning shortcuts: they can attain high accuracy but by leveraging concepts with unintended semantics, thus coming short of their promised advantages. Yet, a systematic characterization of reasoning shortcuts and of potential mitigation strategies is missing. This work fills this gap by characterizing them as unintended optima of the learning objective and identifying four key conditions behind their occurrence. Based on this, we derive several natural mitigation strategies, and analyze their efficacy both theoretically and empirically. Our analysis shows reasoning shortcuts are difficult to deal with, casting doubts on the trustworthiness and interpretability of existing NeSy solutions.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (87)
  1. From statistical relational to neural-symbolic artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4943–4950, 2021.
  2. Neural-symbolic learning and reasoning: A survey and interpretation. Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence: The State of the Art, 342:1, 2022.
  3. Deep learning with logical constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00523, 2022.
  4. A review of some techniques for inclusion of domain-knowledge into deep neural networks. Scientific Reports, 12(1):1–15, 2022.
  5. Semantic-based regularization for learning and inference. Artificial Intelligence, 2017.
  6. Logic tensor networks for semantic image interpretation. In IJCAI, 2017.
  7. DeepProbLog: Neural Probabilistic Logic Programming. NeurIPS, 2018.
  8. A semantic loss function for deep learning with symbolic knowledge. In ICML, 2018.
  9. Coherent hierarchical multi-label classification networks. NeurIPS, 2020.
  10. Semantic Probabilistic Layers for Neuro-Symbolic Learning. In NeurIPS, 2022a.
  11. Learning with logical constraints but without shortcut satisfaction. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
  12. Neuro-symbolic verification of deep neural networks. 2022.
  13. Cynthia Rudin. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5):206–215, 2019.
  14. This looks like that: Deep learning for interpretable image recognition. NeurIPS, 2019.
  15. Concept whitening for interpretable image recognition. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2020.
  16. Ai for radiographic covid-19 detection selects shortcuts over signal. Nature Machine Intelligence, pages 1–10, 2021.
  17. A weakly supervised strategy for learning object detection on a humanoid robot. In 2019 IEEE-RAS 19th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), pages 194–201. IEEE, 2019.
  18. Self-driving cars: A survey. Expert Systems with Applications, 165:113816, 2021.
  19. Learning modulo theories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11435, 2023.
  20. Neural probabilistic logic programming in deepproblog. Artificial Intelligence, 298:103504, 2021a.
  21. Neuro symbolic continual learning: Knowledge, reasoning shortcuts and concept rehearsal. In ICML, 2023.
  22. Yann LeCun. The mnist database of handwritten digits. http://yann. lecun. com/exdb/mnist/, 1998.
  23. Dl2: Training and querying neural networks with logic. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1931–1941. PMLR, 2019.
  24. Neuro-symbolic entropy regularization. In UAI, 2022b.
  25. Multiplexnet: Towards fully satisfied logical constraints in neural networks. In AAAI, 2022.
  26. Bridging logic and kernel machines. Machine learning, 86(1):57–88, 2012.
  27. Neupsl: Neural probabilistic soft logic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14268, 2022.
  28. Probabilistic (logic) programming concepts. Machine Learning, 2015.
  29. A knowledge compilation map. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 17:229–264, 2002.
  30. A compositional atlas of tractable circuit operations for probabilistic inference. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 2021.
  31. Approximate inference for neural probabilistic logic programming. In KR, 2021b.
  32. Scallop: From probabilistic deductive databases to scalable differentiable reasoning. NeurIPS, 2021.
  33. DeepStochLog: Neural Stochastic Logic Programming. In AAAI, 2022.
  34. A-nesi: A scalable approximate method for probabilistic neurosymbolic inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.12393, 2022.
  35. Toward causal representation learning. Proceedings of the IEEE, 2021.
  36. Robustly disentangled causal mechanisms: Validating deep representations for interventional robustness. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6056–6065. PMLR, 2019.
  37. Self-supervised learning with data augmentations provably isolates content from style. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:16451–16467, 2021.
  38. Dataset shift in machine learning. Mit Press, 2008.
  39. Glancenets: Interpretabile, leak-proof concept-based models. NeurIPS, 2022.
  40. Autoencoders, minimum description length and helmholtz free energy. Advances in neural information processing systems, 6, 1993.
  41. Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models. In International conference on machine learning, 2014.
  42. Auto-encoding variational bayes. In International conference on machine learning, 2014.
  43. From variational to deterministic autoencoders. In ICLR, 2020.
  44. VAEL: Bridging Variational Autoencoders and Probabilistic Logic Programming. NeurIPS, 2022.
  45. Challenging common assumptions in the unsupervised learning of disentangled representations. In ICML, 2019.
  46. Weakly-supervised disentanglement without compromises. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6348–6359. PMLR, 2020a.
  47. Weakly supervised disentanglement with guarantees. In ICLR, 2019.
  48. When does label smoothing help? Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  49. Energy-based models for continual learning. In Energy Based Models Workshop-ICLR 2021, 2021.
  50. Closed loop neural-symbolic learning via integrating neural perception, grammar parsing, and symbolic reasoning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5884–5894. PMLR, 2020.
  51. Mitigating neural network overconfidence with logit normalization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 23631–23644. PMLR, 2022.
  52. Calibrating deep neural networks using focal loss. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:15288–15299, 2020.
  53. On mixup regularization. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(1):14632–14662, 2022.
  54. Explainable object-induced action decision for autonomous vehicles. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2020.
  55. Concept bottleneck model with additional unsupervised concepts. IEEE Access, 10:41758–41765, 2022.
  56. Shortcut learning in deep neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(11):665–673, 2020.
  57. Unmasking clever hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn. Nature communications, 10(1):1–8, 2019.
  58. Noise or signal: The role of image backgrounds in object recognition. In ICLR, 2020.
  59. Making deep neural networks right for the right scientific reasons by interacting with their explanations. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(8):476–486, 2020.
  60. Right for the right reasons: training differentiable models by constraining their explanations. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2662–2670, 2017.
  61. Learning explanations that are hard to vary. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020.
  62. Leveraging explanations in interactive machine learning: An overview. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 2023.
  63. Interactive disentanglement: Learning concepts by interacting with their prototype representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02290, 2021.
  64. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 35(8):1798–1828, 2013.
  65. Nonlinear independent component analysis for principled disentanglement in unsupervised deep learning. Patterns, 4(10), 2023.
  66. Variational autoencoders and nonlinear ICA: A unifying framework. In AISTATS, 2020.
  67. Function classes for identifiable nonlinear independent component analysis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:16946–16961, 2022.
  68. Independent mechanism analysis, a new concept? Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:28233–28248, 2021.
  69. Interventional causal representation learning. In International conference on machine learning, pages 372–407. PMLR, 2023.
  70. Causal component analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.17225, 2023.
  71. Nonparametric identifiability of causal representations from unknown interventions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00542, 2023.
  72. On the relationship between disentanglement and multi-task learning. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, pages 625–641. Springer, 2022.
  73. Synergies between disentanglement and sparsity: generalization and identifiability in multi-task learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 18171–18206. PMLR, 2023.
  74. Leveraging sparse and shared feature activations for disentangled representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07939, 2023.
  75. Disentangling factors of variations using few labels. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020b.
  76. Semi-supervised stylegan for disentanglement learning. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 7360–7369, 2020.
  77. From perception to programs: regularize, overparameterize, and amortize. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 33616–33631. PMLR, 2023.
  78. Deep symbolic learning: Discovering symbols and rules from perceptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11561, 2022.
  79. Concept bottleneck models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5338–5348. PMLR, 2020.
  80. Concept embedding models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.09056, 2022.
  81. On a convex logic fragment for learning and reasoning. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2018.
  82. Thomas M Cover. Elements of information theory. John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
  83. A pseudo-semantic loss for deep generative models with logical constraints. In Knowledge and Logical Reasoning in the Era of Data-driven Learning Workshop, July 2023.
  84. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  85. Tommaso Carraro. LTNtorch: PyTorch implementation of Logic Tensor Networks, mar 2022. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6394282.
  86. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun, editors, 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings, 2015. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980.
  87. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015.
Citations (18)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

  • The paper demonstrates that reasoning shortcuts stem from spurious concept-label correlations, undermining generalization in neuro-symbolic systems.
  • It employs multi-task learning, concept supervision, and reconstruction penalties to align learned representations with ground-truth semantics.
  • Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets confirm that effective mitigation enhances the reliability and interpretability of NeSy models.

Not All Neuro-Symbolic Concepts Are Created Equal: Analysis and Mitigation of Reasoning Shortcuts

The paper "Not All Neuro-Symbolic Concepts Are Created Equal: Analysis and Mitigation of Reasoning Shortcuts" addresses a significant challenge within the field of neuro-symbolic (NeSy) AI systems. These systems combine neural network-based learning with symbolic logic to enhance robustness, compliance with constraints, and interpretability. Despite their potential advantages, such as systematic generalization and modularity, NeSy systems encounter a fundamental issue termed "reasoning shortcuts" (RS), where models achieve high accuracy using unintended semantics.

Problem Statement

Recent studies have demonstrated that NeSy predictors, while accurate, can utilize concepts with semantics that diverge from their intended purpose. This phenomenon undermines the expected generalization capabilities and interpretable nature of these models. However, a comprehensive characterization of reasoning shortcuts and strategies to mitigate their impact has been absent. This paper fills that gap through a thorough theoretical and empirical investigation.

Characterization of Reasoning Shortcuts

The authors define reasoning shortcuts as unintended optima of the learning objective, which arise when models exploit spurious concept-label correlations within the training data. The paper identifies four primary conditions contributing to reasoning shortcuts:

  1. The structure of the prior knowledge provided to the model.
  2. The composition of the data set and its support.
  3. The design of the learning objective.
  4. The architecture employed for neural concept extraction.

Using this framework, the authors propose the characterization of reasoning shortcuts as a general concern applicable to various state-of-the-art NeSy architectures.

Mitigation Strategies

To address reasoning shortcuts, the authors propose several mitigation strategies, both supervised and unsupervised:

  • Multi-task Learning (mtl): By training on multiple tasks that share a common set of ground-truth concepts, mtl leverages diverse priors, effectively reducing the space available for reasoning shortcuts.
  • Concept Supervision (c): Providing supervision to specific concepts can significantly narrow down possible unintended semantic mappings to those concepts.
  • Reconstruction Penalties (r): Incorporating penalties that ensure distinct concept representations for different inputs guides the model away from shortcuts.
  • Disentanglement: Designing architectures that ensure independent concept-prediction paths to prevent concept interference.

These strategies are systematically analyzed and validated through a comprehensive set of experiments on synthetic and real-world NeSy datasets.

Experimental Evaluation

The authors conduct experiments on a variety of datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed mitigation strategies. These datasets include:

  1. XOR and MNIST Addition: Simple tasks used to illustrate the challenges of reasoning shortcuts in exhaustive and biased datasets.
  2. ShortMNIST: A complex, biased dataset that necessitates robust mitigation strategies.
  3. Boia: A real-world autonomous vehicle prediction task requiring hard constraint compliance, verified through custom NeSy predictors.

Results and Implications

The experimental results reveal that reasoning shortcuts are pervasive across various tasks and architectures, and their mitigation is crucial for reliable and interpretable NeSy systems. Notably, strategies such as multi-task learning and concept supervision show promise in improving concept quality by ensuring that learned representations closely align with ground-truth semantics. Theoretical implications point towards a broader shift in model training practices where robust algorithms are necessitated to explain and predict with minimal dependence on spurious correlations.

Future Developments

The paper suggests that addressing reasoning shortcuts can significantly enhance the trustworthiness of NeSy systems. Future research may focus on developing automated tools for identifying these shortcuts during model training and leveraging advances in disentangled representation learning. Additionally, investigating the impact of more complex knowledge bases and diversified datasets could further illuminate the pathways to robust neuro-symbolic AI applications.

In conclusion, the paper provides a foundational understanding of reasoning shortcuts within neuro-symbolic systems and offers rigorous strategies to mitigate their impact. This work lays the groundwork for more immediately interpretable, seamless integration of machine learning with symbolic reasoning, especially critical for high-stakes applications requiring transparency and control over model inference.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

YouTube