mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

On the Promise for Assurance of Differentiable Neurosymbolic Reasoning Paradigms

arXiv 2502.08932 ↗First posted 13 Feb 2025cs.AI cs.CVcited by 3

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

To create usable and deployable Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, there requires a level of assurance in performance under many different conditions. Many times, deployed machine learning systems will require more classic logic and reasoning performed through neurosymbolic programs jointly with artificial neural network sensing. While many prior works have examined the assurance of a single component of the system solely with either the neural network alone or entire enterprise systems, very few works have examined the assurance of integrated neurosymbolic systems. Within this work, we assess the assurance of end-to-end fully differentiable neurosymbolic systems that are an emerging method to create data-efficient and more interpretable models. We perform this investigation using Scallop, an end-to-end neurosymbolic library, across classification and reasoning tasks in both the image and audio domains. We assess assurance across adversarial robustness, calibration, user performance parity, and interpretability of solutions for catching misaligned solutions. We find end-to-end neurosymbolic methods present unique opportunities for assurance beyond their data efficiency through our empirical results but not across the board. We find that this class of neurosymbolic models has higher assurance in cases where arithmetic operations are defined and where there is high dimensionality to the input space, where fully neural counterparts struggle to learn robust reasoning operations. We identify the relationship between neurosymbolic models' interpretability to catch shortcuts that later result in increased adversarial vulnerability despite performance parity. Finally, we find that the promise of data efficiency is typically only in the case of class imbalanced reasoning problems.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 31 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Feb 2025.

Builds on

31 of 42 references.

References · 31

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  3. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  4. 2020wav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representationscited by 3,853
  5. 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,857
  6. 2019Certified Adversarial Robustness via Randomized Smoothingcited by 1,324
  7. 2015The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settingscited by 784
  8. 2020Long Range Arena: A Benchmark for Efficient Transformerscited by 696
  9. 2020Measuring Robustness to Natural Distribution Shifts in Image Classificationcited by 452
  10. 2019Neural Probabilistic Logic Programming in DeepProbLogcited by 389
  11. 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 368
  12. 2019Benchmarking Robustness in Object Detection: Autonomous Driving when Winter is Comingcited by 332
19 more
  1. 2024Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Modelscited by 292
  2. 2020Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 194
  3. 2014Towards Deep Neural Network Architectures Robust to Adversarial Examplescited by 146
  4. 2019MNIST-C: A Robustness Benchmark for Computer Visioncited by 137
  5. 2020Certified Robustness to Label-Flipping Attacks via Randomized Smoothingcited by 103
  6. 2018An Empirical Study of Rich Subgroup Fairness for Machine Learningcited by 81
  7. 2019advertorch v0.1: An Adversarial Robustness Toolbox based on PyTorchcited by 69
  8. 2016Very Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Raw Waveformscited by 68
  9. 2023Not All Neuro-Symbolic Concepts Are Created Equal: Analysis and Mitigation of Reasoning Shortcutscited by 63
  10. 2021Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence: Current Trendscited by 54
  11. 2020Neurosymbolic Reinforcement Learning with Formally Verified Explorationcited by 49
  12. 2020How fair can we go in machine learning? Assessing the boundaries of fairness in decision treescited by 22
  13. 2021A Survey on AI Assurancecited by 16
  14. 2024Remote Timing Attacks on Efficient Language Model Inferencecited by 13
  15. 2022Part-Based Models Improve Adversarial Robustnesscited by 11
  16. 2022Safe Neurosymbolic Learning with Differentiable Symbolic Executioncited by 9
  17. 2024Data-Efficient Learning with Neural Programscited by 7
  18. 2024Formal Explanations for Neuro-Symbolic AIcited by 5
  19. 2023Do Machine Learning Models Learn Statistical Rules Inferred from Data?cited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026The RAIL Principles for Neurosymbolic AI: Reasoning, Assurances, Interfacing and Learning
  2. 2023Scallop: A Language for Neurosymbolic Programming
  3. 2025A Comparative Study of Neurosymbolic AI Approaches to Interpretable Logical Reasoning
  4. 2025Right for the Right Reasons: Avoiding Reasoning Shortcuts via Prototypical Neurosymbolic AI
  5. 2025Reasoning in Neurosymbolic AI
  6. 2026DPNL: A DPLL-based Algorithm for Probabilistic Neurosymbolic Learning
  7. 2026Differentiable Logic Programming to Mitigate Reasoning Shortcuts in Neurosymbolic Systems
  8. 2024Dolphin: A Programmable Framework for Scalable Neurosymbolic Learning