Handling Defaults and Their Exceptions in Controlled Natural Language

Defaults are statements in natural language that generalise over a particular kind of objects or over what a particular kind of objects does. Defaults are very useful in human communication since we often do not have complete information about the world, but we must be able to draw conclusions about what is normally the case. However, these conclusions are only tentative and sometimes we have to withdraw them and revise our theory if new information becomes available. In this paper, we propose the use of a controlled natural language as a high-level specification language for modelling commonsense reasoning problems. We investigate how defaults and exceptions can be incorporated into an existing controlled natural language and what kind of formal machinery is required to represent and reason with them in a non-monotonic way. Our controlled natural language looks completely natural at first glance since it consists of a well-defined subset of English but it is in fact a formal language that is computer-processable and can be translated unambiguously via discourse representation structures into an executable answer set program. Answer set programming is a relatively new logic-based knowledge representation formalism and is well-suited to solve commonsense reasoning problems.

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

[2]  J.F.A.K. van Benthem,et al.  Handbook of logic and language [2nd ed.] , 2011 .

[3]  Geoff Sutcliffe The TPTP Problem Library and Associated Infrastructure , 2009, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[4]  Raymond M. Smullyan Forever Undecided: A Puzzle Guide to Godel , 1987 .

[5]  Jack Minker,et al.  Logic and Data Bases , 1978, Springer US.

[6]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Handbook of Knowledge Representation , 2008, Handbook of Knowledge Representation.

[7]  John McCarthy,et al.  Circumscription - A Form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning , 1980, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Drew McDermott,et al.  Non-Monotonic Logic I , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Colin White,et al.  An Update on PENG Light , 2009, ALTA.

[10]  Carlo Zaniolo,et al.  Nonmonotonic reasoning in LDL , 2000 .

[11]  Martin Gebser,et al.  Answer Set Solving in Practice , 2012, Answer Set Solving in Practice.

[12]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Answer Set Programming: A Primer , 2009, Reasoning Web.

[13]  Rolf Schwitter,et al.  The jobs puzzle: Taking on the challenge via controlled natural language processing , 2013, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[14]  Jan van Eijck,et al.  Discourse Representation in Context , 2011 .

[15]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Handbook of Logic and Language , 1996 .

[16]  Kaarel Kaljurand,et al.  Attempto Controlled English for Knowledge Representation , 2008, Reasoning Web.

[17]  Yuliya Lierler,et al.  Logic Programs vs. First-Order Formulas in Textual Inference , 2013, IWCS.

[18]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Answer Set Programming , 2019 .

[19]  Grigoris Antoniou,et al.  Nonmonotonic reasoning , 1997 .

[20]  Robert C. Moore Semantical Considerations on Nonmonotonic Logic , 1985, IJCAI.

[21]  Raymond Reiter On Closed World Data Bases , 1977, Logic and Data Bases.

[22]  Miroslaw Truszczynski,et al.  Answer set programming at a glance , 2011, Commun. ACM.

[23]  Michael Gelfond,et al.  Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents: The Answer-Set Programming Approach , 2014 .

[24]  Ralf Schwitter,et al.  ECOLE: a look-ahead editor of controlled language , 2003, EAMT.

[25]  Nicholas Asher,et al.  Generics and Defaults , 1997, Handbook of Logic and Language.

[26]  Rolf Schwitter,et al.  Controlled Natural Languages for Knowledge Representation , 2010, COLING.