Applying automated deduction to natural language understanding

Abstract Very few natural language understanding applications employ methods from automated deduction. This is mainly because (i) a high level of interdisciplinary knowledge is required, (ii) there is a huge gap between formal semantic theory and practical implementation, and (iii) statistical rather than symbolic approaches dominate the current trends in natural language processing. Moreover, abduction rather than deduction is generally viewed as a promising way to apply reasoning in natural language understanding. We describe three applications where we show how first-order theorem proving and finite model construction can efficiently be employed in language understanding. The first is a text understanding system building semantic representations of texts, developed in the late 1990s. Theorem provers are here used to signal inconsistent interpretations and to check whether new contributions to the discourse are informative or not. This application shows that it is feasible to use general-purpose theorem provers for first-order logic, and that it pays off to use a battery of different inference engines as in practice they complement each other in terms of performance. The second application is a spoken-dialogue interface to a mobile robot and an automated home. We use the first-order theorem prover spass for checking inconsistencies and newness of information, but the inference tasks are complemented with the finite model builder mace used in parallel to the prover. The model builder is used to check for satisfiability of the input; in addition, the produced finite and minimal models are used to determine the actions that the robot or automated house has to execute. When the semantic representation of the dialogue as well as the number of objects in the context are kept fairly small, response times are acceptable to human users. The third demonstration of successful use of first-order inference engines comes from the task of recognising entailment between two (short) texts. We run a robust parser producing semantic representations for both texts, and use the theorem prover vampire to check whether one text entails the other. For many examples it is hard to compute the appropriate background knowledge in order to produce a proof, and the model builders mace and paradox are used to estimate the likelihood of an entailment.

[1]  J. A. Robinson,et al.  A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle , 1965, JACM.

[2]  Anders Søgaard,et al.  Patrick Blackburn and Johan Bos, Representation and Inference for Natural Language , 2007, Stud Logica.

[3]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap. , 1994 .

[4]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Generative Models for Statistical Parsing with Combinatory Categorial Grammar , 2002, ACL.

[5]  Geoff Sutcliffe,et al.  The state of CASC , 2006, AI Commun..

[6]  Andrei Voronkov,et al.  The design and implementation of VAMPIRE , 2002, AI Commun..

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

[8]  William McCune,et al.  Automated Deduction in Equational Logic and Cubic Curves , 1996, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[9]  Johan Bos,et al.  Recognising Textual Entailment with Logical Inference , 2005, HLT.

[10]  Patrick Brézillon,et al.  Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence , 1999 .

[11]  Arthur M. Rosenberg,et al.  Proceedings of the 1968 23rd ACM national conference , 1968 .

[12]  Koen Claessen,et al.  New techniques that improve mace-style model nding , 2003 .

[13]  William McCune Automatic Proofs and Counterexamples for Some Ortholattice Identities , 1998, Inf. Process. Lett..

[14]  Bonnie L. Webber,et al.  Structure and Ostension in the Interpretation of Discourse Deixis , 1991, ArXiv.

[15]  Christoph Weidenbach,et al.  System Description: SpassVersion 3.0 , 2007, CADE.

[16]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Formal methods in the study of language , 1983 .

[17]  David A. Wolfram,et al.  System Description: Kimba, A Model Generator for Many-Valued First-Order Logics , 1999, CADE.

[18]  Peter Baumgartner,et al.  FDPLL - A First Order Davis-Putnam-Longeman-Loveland Procedure , 2000, CADE.

[19]  Virginia Teller Review of Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition by Daniel Jurafsky and James H. Martin. Prentice Hall 2000. , 2000 .

[20]  Christoph Weidenbach System Description: Spass Version 1.0.0 , 1999, CADE.

[21]  Hans de Nivelle,et al.  A Resolution Decision Procedure for the Guarded Fragment , 1998, CADE.

[22]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Introduction to Montague semantics , 1980 .

[23]  Jerry R. Hobbs,et al.  Interpretation as Abduction , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Francis Jeffry Pelletier,et al.  Representation and Inference for Natural Language: A First Course in Computational Semantics , 2005, Computational Linguistics.

[25]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  From discourse to logic , 1993 .

[26]  James H. Martin,et al.  Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition, 2nd Edition , 2000, Prentice Hall series in artificial intelligence.

[27]  Stephen Pulman Formal and Computational Semantics: a Case Study , 2007 .

[28]  Michael Kohlhase,et al.  System Description: MathWeb, an Agent-Based Communication Layer for Distributed Automated Theorem Proving , 1999, CADE.

[29]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  Toward a model of children's story comprehension , 1972 .

[30]  Johan Bos,et al.  An Inference-based Approach to Dialogue System Design , 2002, COLING.

[31]  Christoph Weidenbach,et al.  System Description: SPASS Version 3.0 , 2007 .

[32]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Knowledge Representation for Commonsense Reasoning with Text , 1989, CL.

[33]  C. Fellbaum An Electronic Lexical Database , 1998 .

[34]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Procedures As A Representation For Data In A Computer Program For Understanding Natural Language , 1971 .

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

[36]  Geoff Sutcliffe,et al.  The TPTP Problem Library , 1994, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[37]  Johan Bos,et al.  Implementing the Binding and Accommodation Theory for Anaphora Resolution and Presupposition Projection , 2003, CL.

[38]  Bertram Raphael,et al.  The use of theorem-proving techniques in question-answering systems , 1968, ACM National Conference.

[39]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[40]  James R. Curran,et al.  Parsing the WSJ Using CCG and Log-Linear Models , 2004, ACL.

[41]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Wide-Coverage Semantic Representations from a CCG Parser , 2004, COLING.

[42]  Drew McDermott,et al.  Introduction to artificial intelligence , 1986, Addison-Wesley series in computer science.

[43]  R. E. Shostak 7th International Conference on Automated Deduction , 1984, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[44]  Michael Kohlhase,et al.  Inference and Computational Semantics , 2004, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[45]  Johan Bos Towards Wide-Coverage Semantic Interpretation , 2005 .

[46]  James H. Martin,et al.  Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition , 2000 .