Completability vs (In)completeness

In everyday conversation, no notion of “complete sentence” is required for syntactic licensing. However, so-called “fragmentary”, “incomplete”, and abandoned utterances are problematic for standard formalisms. When contextualised, such data show that (a) non-sentential utterances are adequate to underpin agent coordination, while (b) all linguistic dependencies can be systematically distributed across participants and turns. Standard models have problems accounting for such data because their notions of ‘constituency’ and ‘syntactic domain’ are independent of performance considerations. Concomitantly, we argue that no notion of “full proposition” or encoded speech act is necessary for successful interaction: strings, contents, and joint actions emerge in conversation without any single participant having envisaged in advance the outcome of their own or their interlocutors’ actions. Nonetheless, morphosyntactic and semantic licensing mechanisms need to apply incrementally and subsententially. We argue that, while a representational level of abstract syntax, divorced from conceptual structure and physical action, impedes natural accounts of subsentential coordination phenomena, a view of grammar as a “skill” employing domain-general mechanisms, rather than fixed form-meaning mappings, is needed instead. We provide a sketch of a predictive and incremental architecture (Dynamic Syntax) within which underspecification and time-relative update of meanings and utterances constitute the sole concept of “syntax”

Is linguistics a part of psychology?

Noam Chomsky, the founding father of generative grammar and the instigator of some of its core research programs, claims that linguistics is a part of psychology, concerned with a class of cognitive structures employed in speaking and understanding. In a recent book, Ignorance of Language, Michael Devitt has challenged certain core aspects of linguistics, as prominent practitioners of the science conceive of it. Among Devitt’s major conclusions is that linguistics is not a part of psychology. In this thesis I defend Chomsky’s psychological conception of grammatical theory. My case for the psychological conception involves defending a set of psychological goals for generative grammars, centring on conditions of descriptive and explanatory adequacy. I argue that generative grammar makes an explanatory commitment to a distinction between a psychological system of grammatical competence and the performance systems engaged in putting that competence to use. I then defend the view that this distinction can be investigated by probing speakers’ linguistic intuitions. Building on the psychological goals of generative grammar and its explanatory commitment to a psychological theory of grammatical competence, I argue that generative grammar neither targets nor presupposes non-psychological grammatical properties. The latter nonpsychological properties are dispensable to grammarians’ explanations because their explanatory goals can be met by the theory of grammatical competence to which they are committed. So generative grammars have psychological properties as their subject matter and linguistics is a part of psychology

Learning Interpretable Temporal Properties from Positive Examples Only

We consider the problem of explaining the temporal behavior of black-boxsystems using human-interpretable models. To this end, based on recent researchtrends, we rely on the fundamental yet interpretable models of deterministicfinite automata (DFAs) and linear temporal logic (LTL) formulas. In contrast tomost existing works for learning DFAs and LTL formulas, we rely on onlypositive examples. Our motivation is that negative examples are generallydifficult to observe, in particular, from black-box systems. To learnmeaningful models from positive examples only, we design algorithms that relyon conciseness and language minimality of models as regularizers. To this end,our algorithms adopt two approaches: a symbolic and a counterexample-guidedone. While the symbolic approach exploits an efficient encoding of languageminimality as a constraint satisfaction problem, the counterexample-guided onerelies on generating suitable negative examples to prune the search. Both theapproaches provide us with effective algorithms with theoretical guarantees onthe learned models. To assess the effectiveness of our algorithms, we evaluateall of them on synthetic data.<br

Computer Aided Verification

This open access two-volume set LNCS 11561 and 11562 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV 2019, held in New York City, USA, in July 2019. The 52 full papers presented together with 13 tool papers and 2 case studies, were carefully reviewed and selected from 258 submissions. The papers were organized in the following topical sections: Part I: automata and timed systems; security and hyperproperties; synthesis; model checking; cyber-physical systems and machine learning; probabilistic systems, runtime techniques; dynamical, hybrid, and reactive systems; Part II: logics, decision procedures; and solvers; numerical programs; verification; distributed systems and networks; verification and invariants; and concurrency

Generalizing Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning with Variational Causal Reasoning

As a pivotal component to attaining generalizable solutions in human intelligence, reasoning provides great potential for reinforcement learning (RL) agents' generalization towards varied goals by summarizing part-to-whole arguments and discovering cause-and-effect relations. However, how to discover and represent causalities remains a huge gap that hinders the development of causal RL. In this paper, we augment Goal-Conditioned RL (GCRL) with Causal Graph (CG), a structure built upon the relation between objects and events. We novelly formulate the GCRL problem into variational likelihood maximization with CG as latent variables. To optimize the derived objective, we propose a framework with theoretical performance guarantees that alternates between two steps: using interventional data to estimate the posterior of CG; using CG to learn generalizable models and interpretable policies. Due to the lack of public benchmarks that verify generalization capability under reasoning, we design nine tasks and then empirically show the effectiveness of the proposed method against five baselines on these tasks. Further theoretical analysis shows that our performance improvement is attributed to the virtuous cycle of causal discovery, transition modeling, and policy training, which aligns with the experimental evidence in extensive ablation studies.Comment: 28 pages, 5 figures, under revie

Computer Aided Verification

This open access two-volume set LNCS 11561 and 11562 constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, CAV 2019, held in New York City, USA, in July 2019. The 52 full papers presented together with 13 tool papers and 2 case studies, were carefully reviewed and selected from 258 submissions. The papers were organized in the following topical sections: Part I: automata and timed systems; security and hyperproperties; synthesis; model checking; cyber-physical systems and machine learning; probabilistic systems, runtime techniques; dynamical, hybrid, and reactive systems; Part II: logics, decision procedures; and solvers; numerical programs; verification; distributed systems and networks; verification and invariants; and concurrency

Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design – FMCAD 2022

The Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD) is an annual conference on the theory and applications of formal methods in hardware and system verification. FMCAD provides a leading forum to researchers in academia and industry for presenting and discussing groundbreaking methods, technologies, theoretical results, and tools for reasoning formally about computing systems. FMCAD covers formal aspects of computer-aided system design including verification, specification, synthesis, and testing