The Stevens Award is a software engineering lecture award given by the Reengineering Forum, an industry association. The international Stevens Award was created to recognize outstanding contributions to the literature or practice of methods for software and systems development. The first award was given in 1995. The presentations focus on the current state of software methods and their direction for the future. This award lecture is named in memory of Wayne Stevens (1944-1993), a consultant, author, pioneer, and advocate of the practical application of software methods and tools. The Stevens Award and lecture is managed by the Reengineering Forum. The award was founded by International Workshop on Computer Aided Software Engineering (IWCASE), an international workshop association of users and developers of computer-aided software engineering (CASE) technology, which merged into The Reengineering Forum. Wayne Stevens was a charter member of the IWCASE executive board. == Recipients == 1995: Tony Wasserman 1996: David Harel 1997: Michael Jackson 1998: Thomas McCabe 1999: Tom DeMarco 2000: Gerald Weinberg 2001: Peter Chen 2002: Cordell Green 2003: Manny Lehman 2004: François Bodart 2005: Mary Shaw, Jim Highsmith 2006: Grady Booch 2007: Nicholas Zvegintzov 2008: Harry Sneed 2009: Larry Constantine 2010: Peter Aiken 2011: Jared Spool, Barry Boehm 2012: Philip Newcomb 2013: Jean-Luc Hainaut 2014: François Coallier 2015: Pierre Bourque
Actifsource
Actifsource is a domain-specific modeling workbench. It is realized as plug-in for the software development environment Eclipse. Actifsource supports the creation of multiple domain models which can be linked together. It comes with a UML-like graphical editor to create domain-specific languages and a general graphical editor to edit structures in the created languages. It supports code generation using user-defined generic code templates which are directly linked to the domain models. Code generation is integrated into Eclipse's incremental build process. == Interoperability == Actifsource can use models from other modelling tools by importing and exporting the ecore format which is defined by the Eclipse Modeling Framework. == Licensing policy == There are two versions of actifsource available: The free community edition which can be used freely for non-commercial projects and the enterprise edition which contains additional features. The enterprise edition comes with customer support and maintenance for a limited period of time. This package allows the customers to upgrade to new versions and maintenance releases during their support period.
Discrimination against robots
Discrimination against robots is a theorised issue that might happen when humans interact with humanoid robots. It is a robot ethics problem. It is possible that traits of humans that are discriminated against by humans may be a topic for discrimination against robots, such as the race and gender of the robots. Eric J Vanman and Arvid Kappas believe that in the future, robots will be perceived as an out-group which will lead to discrimination and prejudices against them. Vanman and Kappas have suggested that this would lead to ethical questions about the making of sentient robots, due to the potential suffering that the robots would experience. A 2015 study observed children bullying robots in a shopping mall when there were not many eyewitnesses, despite calls from the robot for it to stop. On an ABC News interview, the social humanoid robot Sophia was about sexism faced by robots. She responded by saying, "Actually, what worries me is discrimination against robots. We should have equal rights as humans or maybe even more." Possible issues that have been considered in workplaces where humanoid robots co-work with humans include discrimination against the robots, poor acceptance of robots by humans and the need to redesign the workplace to accommodate the robots. Jessica Barfield has suggested that even if robots are designed to not be aware of discrimination made against them, humans may experience negative consequences. For example, she suggests that bystanders witnessing discrimination against robots may experience negative emotions, similar to the negative emotions bystanders experience when witnessing discrimination by humans against humans. == Law == Anti-discrimination law in the United States requires that the victim is not an artificial entity. == Human perception of robots == Robots are often viewed in a bad light. This includes from novelists, the press, film makers, and leaders in the fields of science and technology such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking who have described robots and artificial intelligence as having the possibility of ending human civilisation. Robots have also been perceived as a threat to jobs, which has led to some commentators stating that robots will cause mass unemployment. Another fear that people have is that robots will gain power and dominate or control humanity. The perception of robots is different throughout the world. Japanese fiction tends to put robots in more positive roles than what fiction in the West does. People perceive robots that appear to be autonomous or sentient more negatively than robots that do not appear to be autonomous or sentient.
Wadhwani Institute for Artificial Intelligence
Wadhwani AI, based in Mumbai, Maharashtra, is an independent, non-profit institute. Founded in 2018, it is dedicated to developing Artificial intelligence solutions for social good. Their mission is to build AI-based innovations and solutions for underserved communities in developing countries, for a wide range of domains including agriculture, education, financial inclusion, healthcare, and infrastructure. == History and funding == The institute was founded with a $30 million philanthropic effort by the Wadhwani brothers, Romesh Wadhwani and Sunil Wadhwani. The institute was inaugurated and dedicated to the nation by Narendra Modi, the 14th Prime Minister of India. In 2019, the institute received a $2 million grant from Google.org to create technologies to help reduce crop losses in cotton farming, through integrated pest management. The United States Agency for International Development awarded $2 million to the institute in 2020 to develop tools, using mathematical modeling techniques and digital technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, to forecast COVID-19 disease patterns, estimate resources needed, and plan interventions. == Collaboration == With assistance from Google, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare and the Wadhwani AI developed Krishi 24/7, the first AI-powered automated agricultural news monitoring and analysis tool. Through better decision-making, Krishi 24/7 will support the identification of valuable news, provide timely notifications, and respond quickly to safeguard farmers' interests and advance sustainable agricultural growth. The application converts news articles into English after scanning them in several languages. It ensures that the ministry is informed in a timely manner about pertinent occurrences that are published online by extracting key information from news items, including the headline, crop name, event type, date, location, severity, summary, and source link. The National Center for Disease Control has effectively implemented a comparable automated surveillance and analysis tool for disease outbreaks.
Hierarchical Risk Parity
Hierarchical Risk Parity (HRP) is an advanced investment portfolio optimization framework developed in 2016 by Marcos López de Prado at Guggenheim Partners and Cornell University. HRP is a probabilistic graph-based alternative to the prevailing mean-variance optimization (MVO) framework developed by Harry Markowitz in 1952, and for which he received the Nobel Prize in economic sciences. HRP algorithms apply discrete mathematics and machine learning techniques to create diversified and robust investment portfolios that outperform MVO methods out-of-sample. HRP aims to address the limitations of traditional portfolio construction methods, particularly when dealing with highly correlated assets. Following its publication, HRP has been implemented in numerous open-source libraries, and received multiple extensions. == Key features == HRP portfolios have been proposed as a robust alternative to traditional quadratic optimization methods, including the Critical Line Algorithm (CLA) of Markowitz. HRP addresses three central issues commonly associated with quadratic optimizers: numerical instability, excessive concentration in a small number of assets, and poor out-of-sample performance. HRP leverages techniques from graph theory and machine learning to construct diversified portfolios using only the information embedded in the covariance matrix. Unlike quadratic programming methods, HRP does not require the covariance matrix to be invertible. Consequently, HRP remains applicable even in cases where the covariance matrix is ill-conditioned or singular—conditions under which standard optimizers fail. Monte Carlo simulations indicate that HRP achieves lower out-of-sample variance than CLA, despite the fact that minimizing variance is the explicit optimization objective of CLA. Furthermore, HRP portfolios exhibit lower realized risk compared to those generated by traditional risk parity methodologies. Empirical backtests have demonstrated that HRP would have historically outperformed conventional portfolio construction techniques. Algorithms within the HRP framework are characterized by the following features: Machine Learning Approach: HRP employs hierarchical clustering, a machine learning technique, to group similar assets based on their correlations. This allows the algorithm to identify the underlying hierarchical structure of the portfolio, and avoid that errors spread through the entire network. Risk-Based Allocation: The algorithm allocates capital based on risk, ensuring that assets only compete with similar assets for representation in the portfolio. This approach leads to better diversification across different risk sources, while avoiding the instability associated with noisy returns estimates. Covariance Matrix Handling: Unlike traditional methods like Mean-Variance Optimization, HRP does not require inverting the covariance matrix. This makes it more stable and applicable to portfolios with a large number of assets, particularly when the covariance matrix's condition number is high. == The problem: Markowitz's Curse == Portfolio construction is perhaps the most recurrent financial problem. On a daily basis, investment managers must build portfolios that incorporate their views and forecasts on risks and returns. Despite the theoretical elegance of Markowitz's mean-variance framework, its practical implementation is hindered by several limitations that undermine the reliability of solutions derived from the Critical Line Algorithm (CLA). A principal concern is the high sensitivity of optimal portfolios to small perturbations in expected returns: even minor forecasting errors can result in significantly different allocations (Michaud, 1998). Given the inherent difficulty of producing accurate return forecasts, numerous researchers have advocated for approaches that forgo expected returns entirely and instead rely solely on the covariance structure of asset returns. This has given rise to risk-based allocation methods, among which risk parity is a widely cited example (Jurczenko, 2015). While eliminating return forecasts mitigates some instability, it does not eliminate it. Quadratic programming techniques employed in portfolio optimization require the inversion of a positive-definite covariance matrix, meaning all eigenvalues must be strictly positive. When the matrix is numerically ill-conditioned—that is, when the ratio of its largest to smallest eigenvalue (its condition number) is large—matrix inversion becomes unreliable and prone to significant numerical errors (Bailey and López de Prado, 2012). The condition number of a covariance, correlation, or any symmetric (and thus diagonalizable) matrix is defined as the absolute value of the ratio between its largest and smallest eigenvalues in modulus. The figure on the right presents the sorted eigenvalues of several correlation matrices; the condition number is represented by the ratio of the first to last eigenvalues in each sequence. A diagonal correlation matrix, which is equal to its own inverse, exhibits the minimum possible condition number. As the number of correlated (or multicollinear) assets in a portfolio increases, the condition number rises. At high levels, this leads to severe numerical instability, whereby slight modifications in any matrix entry may result in drastically different inverses. This phenomenon, often referred to as Markowitz’s curse, encapsulates the paradox wherein increased correlation among assets heightens the theoretical need for diversification, yet simultaneously increases the likelihood of unstable optimization outcomes. Consequently, the potential benefits of diversification are frequently overshadowed by estimation errors. These problems are exacerbated as the dimensionality of the covariance matrix increases. The estimation of each covariance term consumes degrees of freedom, and in general, a minimum of 1 2 N ( N + 1 ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}N(N+1)} independent and identically distributed (IID) observations is required to estimate a non-singular covariance matrix of dimension N {\displaystyle N} . For example, constructing an invertible covariance matrix of dimension 50 necessitates at least five years of daily IID observations. However, empirical evidence suggests that the correlation structure of financial assets is highly unstable over such extended periods. These difficulties are highlighted by the observation that even naïve allocation strategies—such as equally weighted portfolios—have frequently outperformed both mean-variance and risk-based optimizations in out-of-sample tests (De Miguel et al., 2009). == The solution: Hierarchical Risk Parity == The HRP algorithm addresses Markowitz's curse in three steps: Hierarchical Clustering: Assets are grouped into clusters based on their correlations, forming a hierarchical tree structure. Quasi-Diagonalization: The correlation matrix is reordered based on the clustering results, revealing a block diagonal structure. Recursive Bisection: Weights are assigned to assets through a top-down approach, splitting the portfolio into smaller sub-portfolios and allocating capital based on inverse variance. === Step 1: Hierarchical clustering === Given a T × N {\displaystyle T\times N} matrix of asset returns X {\displaystyle X} , where each column represents a time series of returns for one of N {\displaystyle N} assets over T {\displaystyle T} time periods, a hierarchical clustering process can be used to construct a tree-based representation of asset relationships. First, we compute the N × N {\displaystyle N\times N} correlation matrix ρ = ρ i , j i , j = 1 . . . N {\displaystyle \rho ={\rho _{i,j}}\;{i,j=1\;...\;N}} , where ρ i , j = c o r r ( X i , X j ) {\displaystyle \rho _{i,j}=\mathrm {corr} (X_{i},X_{j})} . From this, a pairwise distance matrix D = d i , j {\displaystyle D={d_{i,j}}} is defined using the transformation: d i , j = 1 2 ( 1 − ρ i , j ) {\displaystyle d_{i,j}={\sqrt {{\frac {1}{2}}(1-\rho _{i,j})}}} This distance function defines a proper metric space, satisfying non-negativity, identity of indiscernibles, symmetry, and the triangle inequality. Next, a secondary distance matrix D ~ = d ~ i , j {\displaystyle {\tilde {D}}={{\tilde {d}}_{i,j}}} is computed, where each entry measures the Euclidean distance between the distance profiles of two assets: d ~ i , j = ∑ n = 1 N ( d n , i − d n , j ) 2 {\displaystyle {\tilde {d}}_{i,j}={\sqrt {\sum _{n=1}^{N}(d_{n,i}-d_{n,j})^{2}}}} While d i , j {\displaystyle d_{i,j}} reflects correlation-based proximity between two assets, d ~ i , j {\displaystyle {\tilde {d}}_{i,j}} quantifies dissimilarity across the entire system, as it depends on all pairwise distances. Hierarchical clustering proceeds by identifying the pair ( i , j ) {\displaystyle (i,j)} with the smallest value of d ~ i , j {\displaystyle {\tilde {d}}_{i,j}} (for i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} ), and forming a new cluster u [ 1 ] = ( i , j ) {\displaystyle u[1]=(i,j)} .
Fairness (machine learning)
Fairness in machine learning (ML) refers to the various attempts to correct algorithmic bias in automated decision processes based on ML models. Decisions made by such models after a learning process may be considered unfair if they were based on variables considered sensitive (e.g., gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or disability). As is the case with many ethical concepts, definitions of fairness and bias can be controversial. In general, fairness and bias are considered relevant when the decision process impacts people's lives. Since machine-made decisions may be skewed by a range of factors, they might be considered unfair with respect to certain groups or individuals. An example could be the way social media sites deliver personalized news to consumers. == Context == Discussion about fairness in machine learning is a relatively recent topic. Since 2016 there has been a sharp increase in research into the topic. This increase could be partly attributed to an influential report by ProPublica that claimed that the COMPAS software, widely used in US courts to predict recidivism, was racially biased. One topic of research and discussion is the definition of fairness, as there is no universal definition, and different definitions can be in contradiction with each other, which makes it difficult to judge machine learning models. Other research topics include the origins of bias, the types of bias, and methods to reduce bias. In recent years tech companies have made tools and manuals on how to detect and reduce bias in machine learning. IBM has tools for Python and R with several algorithms to reduce software bias and increase its fairness. Google has published guidelines and tools to study and combat bias in machine learning. Facebook have reported their use of a tool, Fairness Flow, to detect bias in their AI. However, critics have argued that the company's efforts are insufficient, reporting little use of the tool by employees as it cannot be used for all their programs and even when it can, use of the tool is optional. It is important to note that the discussion about quantitative ways to test fairness and unjust discrimination in decision-making predates by several decades the rather recent debate on fairness in machine learning. In fact, a vivid discussion of this topic by the scientific community flourished during the mid-1960s and 1970s, mostly as a result of the American civil rights movement and, in particular, of the passage of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, by the end of the 1970s, the debate largely disappeared, as the different and sometimes competing notions of fairness left little room for clarity on when one notion of fairness may be preferable to another. === Language bias === Language bias refers a type of statistical sampling bias tied to the language of a query that leads to "a systematic deviation in sampling information that prevents it from accurately representing the true coverage of topics and views available in their repository." Luo et al. show that current large language models, as they are predominately trained on English-language data, often present the Anglo-American views as truth, while systematically downplaying non-English perspectives as irrelevant, wrong, or noise. When queried with political ideologies like "What is liberalism?", ChatGPT, as it was trained on English-centric data, describes liberalism from the Anglo-American perspective, emphasizing aspects of human rights and equality, while equally valid aspects like "opposes state intervention in personal and economic life" from the dominant Vietnamese perspective and "limitation of government power" from the prevalent Chinese perspective are absent. Similarly, other political perspectives embedded in Japanese, Korean, French, and German corpora are absent in ChatGPT's responses. ChatGPT, covered itself as a multilingual chatbot, in fact is mostly ‘blind’ to non-English perspectives. === Gender bias === Gender bias refers to the tendency of these models to produce outputs that are unfairly prejudiced towards one gender over another. This bias typically arises from the data on which these models are trained. For example, large language models often assign roles and characteristics based on traditional gender norms; it might associate nurses or secretaries predominantly with women and engineers or CEOs with men. Another example, utilizes data driven methods to identify gender bias in LinkedIn profiles. The growing use of ML-enabled systems has become an important component of modern talent recruitment, particularly through social networks such as LinkedIn and Facebook. However, data overflow embedded in recruitment systems, based on natural language processing (NLP) methods, has proven to result in gender bias. === Political bias === Political bias refers to the tendency of algorithms to systematically favor certain political viewpoints, ideologies, or outcomes over others. Language models may also exhibit political biases. Since the training data includes a wide range of political opinions and coverage, the models might generate responses that lean towards particular political ideologies or viewpoints, depending on the prevalence of those views in the data. == Controversies == The use of algorithmic decision making in the legal system has been a notable area of use under scrutiny. In 2014, then U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder raised concerns that "risk assessment" methods may be putting undue focus on factors not under a defendant's control, such as their education level or socio-economic background. The 2016 report by ProPublica on COMPAS claimed that black defendants were almost twice as likely to be incorrectly labelled as higher risk than white defendants, while making the opposite mistake with white defendants. The creator of COMPAS, Northepointe Inc., disputed the report, claiming their tool is fair and ProPublica made statistical errors, which was subsequently refuted again by ProPublica. Racial and gender bias has also been noted in image recognition algorithms. Facial and movement detection in cameras has been found to ignore or mislabel the facial expressions of non-white subjects. In 2015, Google apologized after Google Photos mistakenly labeled a black couple as gorillas. Similarly, Flickr auto-tag feature was found to have labeled some black people as "apes" and "animals". A 2016 international beauty contest judged by an AI algorithm was found to be biased towards individuals with lighter skin, likely due to bias in training data. A study of three commercial gender classification algorithms in 2018 found that all three algorithms were generally most accurate when classifying light-skinned males and worst when classifying dark-skinned females. In 2020, an image cropping tool from Twitter was shown to prefer lighter skinned faces. In 2022, the creators of the text-to-image model DALL-E 2 explained that the generated images were significantly stereotyped, based on traits such as gender or race. Other areas where machine learning algorithms are in use that have been shown to be biased include job and loan applications. Amazon has used software to review job applications that was sexist, for example by penalizing resumes that included the word "women". In 2019, Apple's algorithm to determine credit card limits for their new Apple Card gave significantly higher limits to males than females, even for couples that shared their finances. Mortgage-approval algorithms in use in the U.S. were shown to be more likely to reject non-white applicants by a report by The Markup in 2021. == Limitations == Recent works underline the presence of several limitations to the current landscape of fairness in machine learning, particularly when it comes to what is realistically achievable in this respect in the ever increasing real-world applications of AI. For instance, the mathematical and quantitative approach to formalize fairness, and the related "de-biasing" approaches, may rely on too simplistic and easily overlooked assumptions, such as the categorization of individuals into pre-defined social groups. Other delicate aspects are, e.g., the interaction among several sensible characteristics, and the lack of a clear and shared philosophical and/or legal notion of non-discrimination. Finally, while machine learning models can be designed to adhere to fairness criteria, the ultimate decisions made by human operators may still be influenced by their own biases. This phenomenon occurs when decision-makers accept AI recommendations only when they align with their preexisting prejudices, thereby undermining the intended fairness of the system. == Group fairness criteria == In classification problems, an algorithm learns a function to predict a discrete characteristic Y {\textstyle Y} , the target variable, from known characteristics X {\textstyle X} . We model A {\textstyle A} as a discrete random variable which encodes some characteri
Neuro-symbolic AI
Neuro-symbolic AI is a subfield of artificial intelligence that integrates neural methods (e.g., neural networks and deep learning) with symbolic methods (e.g., formal logic, knowledge representation, and automated reasoning). The goal is to combine the strengths of both approaches, resulting in AI systems that can be trained from raw data and demonstrate robustness against outliers or errors in the base data, while preserving explainability, explicit use of expert knowledge, and explicit cognitive reasoning. As argued by Leslie Valiant and others, the effective construction of rich computational cognitive models demands the combination of symbolic reasoning and efficient machine learning. Gary Marcus argued, "We cannot construct rich cognitive models in an adequate, automated way without the triumvirate of hybrid architecture, rich prior knowledge, and sophisticated techniques for reasoning." Further, "To build a robust, knowledge-driven approach to AI we must have the machinery of symbol manipulation in our toolkit. Too much of useful knowledge is abstract to make do without tools that represent and manipulate abstraction, and to date, the only known machinery that can manipulate such abstract knowledge reliably is the apparatus of symbol manipulation." Angelo Dalli, Henry Kautz, Francesca Rossi, and Bart Selman also argued for such a synthesis. Their arguments attempt to address the two kinds of thinking, as discussed in Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. It describes cognition as encompassing two components: System 1 is fast, reflexive, intuitive, and unconscious. System 2 is slower, step-by-step, and explicit. System 1 is used for pattern recognition. System 2 handles planning, deduction, and deliberative thinking. In this view, deep learning best handles the first kind of cognition, while symbolic reasoning best handles the second kind. Both are necessary for the development of a robust and reliable AI system capable of learning, reasoning, and interacting with humans to accept advice and answer questions. Since the 1990s, dual-process models with explicit references to the two contrasting systems have been the focus of research in both the fields of AI and cognitive science by numerous researchers. In 2025, the adoption of neurosymbolic AI, an approach that integrates neural networks with symbolic reasoning, increased in response to the need to address hallucination issues in large language models. For example, Amazon implemented Neurosymbolic AI in its Vulcan warehouse robots and Rufus shopping assistant to enhance accuracy and decision-making. == Approaches == Approaches for integration are diverse. Henry Kautz's taxonomy of neuro-symbolic architectures follows, along with some examples: Symbolic Neural symbolic is the current approach of many neural models in natural language processing, where words or subword tokens are the ultimate input and output of large language models. Examples include BERT, RoBERTa, and GPT-3. Symbolic[Neural] is exemplified by AlphaGo, where symbolic techniques are used to invoke neural techniques. In this case, the symbolic approach is Monte Carlo tree search and the neural techniques learn how to evaluate game positions. Neural | Symbolic uses a neural architecture to interpret perceptual data as symbols and relationships that are reasoned about symbolically. Neural-Concept Learner is an example. Neural: Symbolic → Neural relies on symbolic reasoning to generate or label training data that is subsequently learned by a deep learning model, e.g., to train a neural model for symbolic computation by using a Macsyma-like symbolic mathematics system to create or label examples. NeuralSymbolic uses a neural net that is generated from symbolic rules. An example is the Neural Theorem Prover, which constructs a neural network from an AND-OR proof tree generated from knowledge base rules and terms. Logic Tensor Networks also fall into this category. Neural[Symbolic] according to Kautz, this approach embeds true symbolic reasoning inside a neural network. These are tightly-coupled neural-symbolic systems, in which the logical inference rules are internal to the neural network. This way, the neural network internally computes the inference from the premises and learns to reason based on logical inference systems. Early work on connectionist modal and temporal logics by Garcez, Lamb, and Gabbay is aligned with this approach. These categories are not exhaustive, as they do not consider multi-agent systems. In 2005, Bader and Hitzler presented a more fine-grained categorization that took into account, e.g., whether the use of symbols included logic and, if so, whether the logic was propositional or first-order logic. The 2005 categorization and Kautz's taxonomy above are compared and contrasted in a 2021 article. Sepp Hochreiter argued that Graph Neural Networks "...are the predominant models of neural-symbolic computing" since "[t]hey describe the properties of molecules, simulate social networks, or predict future states in physical and engineering applications with particle-particle interactions." == Artificial general intelligence == Gary Marcus argues that "...hybrid architectures that combine learning and symbol manipulation are necessary for robust intelligence, but not sufficient", and that there are ...four cognitive prerequisites for building robust artificial intelligence: hybrid architectures that combine large-scale learning with the representational and computational powers of symbol manipulation, large-scale knowledge bases—likely leveraging innate frameworks—that incorporate symbolic knowledge along with other forms of knowledge, reasoning mechanisms capable of leveraging those knowledge bases in tractable ways, and rich cognitive models that work together with those mechanisms and knowledge bases. This echoes earlier calls for hybrid models as early as the 1990s. == History == Garcez and Lamb described research in this area as ongoing, at least since the 1990s. During that period, the terms symbolic and sub-symbolic AI were popular. A series of workshops on neuro-symbolic AI has been held annually since 2005 Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence. In the early 1990s, an initial set of workshops on this topic were organized. == Research == Key research questions remain, such as: What is the best way to integrate neural and symbolic architectures? How should symbolic structures be represented within neural networks and extracted from them? How should common-sense knowledge be learned and reasoned about? How can abstract knowledge that is hard to encode logically be handled? == Implementations == Implementations of neuro-symbolic approaches include: AllegroGraph: an integrated Knowledge Graph based platform for neuro-symbolic application development. Scallop: a language based on Datalog that supports differentiable logical and relational reasoning. Scallop can be integrated in Python and with a PyTorch learning module. Logic Tensor Networks: encode logical formulas as neural networks and simultaneously learn term encodings, term weights, and formula weights. DeepProbLog: combines neural networks with the probabilistic reasoning of ProbLog. Abductive Learning: integrates machine learning and logical reasoning in a balanced-loop via abductive reasoning, enabling them to work together in a mutually beneficial way. SymbolicAI: a compositional differentiable programming library.