Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Article
Data sources: ZENODO
addClaim

Where Perceptrons Meet Proof Trees: A State of the Art Review of Neuro-Symbolic Reasoning Systems

Authors: Revista, Zen; IA, 10;

Where Perceptrons Meet Proof Trees: A State of the Art Review of Neuro-Symbolic Reasoning Systems

Abstract

This article presents a narrative review of Neuro-Symbolic Reasoning Systems in the context of Artificial Intelligence. The literature on this topic has expanded substantially over recent decades, yet it remains fragmented across subfields, methods, and national research traditions. Drawing on an interpretive synthesis of representative contributions, the review reconstructs the historical development of the area, examines the conceptual foundations and definitional disputes that organize its debates, and maps the contemporary landscape of research, including the methodological shift toward data-intensive approaches and the institutional pressures that shape publication practice. Particular attention is given to the role of neuro-symbolic and reasoning as organizing themes, and to the conditions under which findings from different research traditions can be brought into productive comparison. The review identifies three synthetic conclusions: the literature is cumulatively strong but organizationally weak; methodological pluralism is better understood as a resource than as a defect; and the growing practical salience of the topic raises the stakes of its unresolved conceptual questions. An agenda for future work is proposed, emphasizing integrative research designs, transparent synthesis practices, and the protection of definitional and infrastructural work on which cumulative progress depends. The article is intended as both a reference map for newcomers and a provocation for specialists in Artificial Intelligence.

Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback