Modeling Semantic Containment and Exclusion in Natural Language Inference

We propose an approach to natural language inference based on a model of natural logic, which identifies valid inferences by their lexical and syntactic features, without full semantic interpretation. We greatly extend past work in natural logic, which has focused solely on semantic containment and monotonicity, to incorporate both semantic exclusion and implicativity. Our system decomposes an inference problem into a sequence of atomic edits linking premise to hypothesis; predicts a lexical entailment relation for each edit using a statistical classifier; propagates these relations upward through a syntax tree according to semantic properties of intermediate nodes; and composes the resulting entailment relations across the edit sequence. We evaluate our system on the FraCaS test suite, and achieve a 27% reduction in error from previous work. We also show that hybridizing an existing RTE system with our natural logic system yields significant gains on the RTE3 test suite.

[1]  J. Benthem Essays in Logical Semantics , 1986 .

[2]  Michael Böttner,et al.  A note on existential import , 1988, Stud Logica.

[3]  Victor Sanchez,et al.  Studies on Natural Logic and Categorial Grammar , 1991 .

[4]  Rob A. van der Sandt,et al.  Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution , 1992, J. Semant..

[5]  David W. Conrath,et al.  Semantic Similarity Based on Corpus Statistics and Lexical Taxonomy , 1997, ROCLING/IJCLCLP.

[6]  Dan Klein,et al.  Accurate Unlexicalized Parsing , 2003, ACL.

[7]  G. Lakoff Linguistics and natural logic , 1970, Synthese.

[8]  Dan I. Moldovan,et al.  Applying COGEX to Recognize Textual Entailment , 2005, MLCW.

[9]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Recognizing Textual Entailment Using Lexical Similarity , 2005 .

[10]  Elena Akhmatova,et al.  Textual Entailment Resolution via Atomic Propositions , 2005 .

[11]  Andrew Hickl,et al.  Recognizing Textual Entailment with LCC’s G ROUNDHOG System , 2005 .

[12]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  Classification of Semantic Relations by Humans and Machines , 2005, EMSEE@ACL.

[13]  Ido Dagan,et al.  The Third PASCAL Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[14]  Ido Dagan,et al.  Investigating a Generic Paraphrase-Based Approach for Relation Extraction , 2006, EACL.

[15]  Roger Levy,et al.  Tregex and Tsurgeon: tools for querying and manipulating tree data structures , 2006, LREC.

[16]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Learning to recognize features of valid textual entailments , 2006, NAACL.

[17]  Learning to distinguish valid textual entailments , 2006 .

[18]  Sanda M. Harabagiu,et al.  Using Scenario Knowledge in Automatic Question Answering , 2006 .

[19]  C. Condoravdi,et al.  Computing relative polarity for textual inference , 2006 .

[20]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Natural Logic for Textual Inference , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[21]  Stefan Harmeling An Extensible Probabilistic Transformation-based Approach to the Third Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[22]  K. Markert,et al.  When logical inference helps determining textual entailment ( and when it doesn ’ t ) , .