The Role of Pragmatics in Solving the Winograd Schema Challenge

Different aspects and approaches to commonsense reasoning have been investigated in order to provide solutions for the Winograd Schema Challenge (WSC). The vast complexities of natural language processing (parsing, assigning word sense, integrating context, pragmatics and world-knowledge, ...) give broad appeal to systems based on statistical analysis of corpora. However, solutions based purely on learning from corpora are not currently able to capture the semantics underlying the WSC - which was intended to provide problems whose solution requires knowledge and reasoning, rather than statistical analysis of superficial lexical features. In this paper we consider the WSC as a means for highlighting challenges in the field of commonsense reasoning more generally. We begin by discussing issues with current approaches to the WSC. Following this we outline some key challenges faced, in particular highlighting the importance of dealing with pragmatics. We then argue for an alternative approach which favours the use of knowledge bases where the deep semantics of the different interpretations of commonsense terms are formalised. Furthermore, we suggest using heuristic approaches based on pragmatics to determine appropriate configurations of both reasonable interpretations of terms and necessary assumptions about the world.

[1]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[2]  John McCarthy,et al.  Notes on Formalizing Context , 1993, IJCAI.

[3]  Robyn Carston,et al.  The semantics/pragmatics distinction: a view from Relevance Theory , 1998 .

[4]  Alessandro Lenci,et al.  Composing and Updating Verb Argument Expectations: A Distributional Semantic Model , 2011, CMCL@ACL.

[5]  Vincent Ng,et al.  Machine Learning for Entity Coreference Resolution: A Retrospective Look at Two Decades of Research , 2017, AAAI.

[6]  Edith Bolling Anaphora Resolution , 2006 .

[7]  Steven Verheyen,et al.  Determining the dimensionality in spatial representations of semantic concepts , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[8]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[9]  J. McCarthy ELABORATION TOLERANCE , 1997 .

[10]  Stephen C. Levinson,et al.  Three levels of meaning , 1995 .

[11]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  Relevance theory: A tutorial , 2002 .

[12]  Harry Bunt,et al.  The ABC of Computational Pragmatics , 2000, Abduction, Belief and Context in Dialogue.

[13]  Ernest Davis,et al.  Qualitative Spatial Reasoning in Interpreting Text and Narrative , 2013, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[14]  Dan Roth,et al.  Solving Hard Coreference Problems , 2019, NAACL.

[15]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[16]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Common Sense, the Turing Test, and the Quest for Real AI , 2017 .

[17]  Vincent Ng,et al.  Resolving Complex Cases of Definite Pronouns: The Winograd Schema Challenge , 2012, EMNLP.

[18]  Douglas B. Lenat,et al.  CYC: a large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure , 1995, CACM.

[19]  B. Bennett What is a Forest? On the Vagueness of Certain Geographic Concepts , 2001 .

[20]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[21]  Loizos Michael,et al.  Tackling the Winograd Schema Challenge Through Machine Logical Inferences , 2016, STAIRS.

[22]  Brandon Bennett,et al.  Classification, Individuation and Demarcation of Forests: Formalising the Multi-Faceted Semantics of Geographic Terms , 2017, COSIT.

[23]  Yuliya Lierler,et al.  The Winograd Schema Challenge and Reasoning about Correlation , 2015, AAAI Spring Symposia.

[24]  Zhen-Hua Ling,et al.  Commonsense Knowledge Enhanced Embeddings for Solving Pronoun Disambiguation Problems in Winograd Schema Challenge , 2016, 1611.04146.

[25]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  The Winograd Schema Challenge , 2011, AAAI Spring Symposium: Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning.

[26]  Jaime G. Carbonell,et al.  Anaphora Resolution: A Multi-Strategy Approach , 1988, COLING.

[27]  Peter Schüller,et al.  Using Semantic Web Resources for Solving Winograd Schemas: Sculptures, Shelves, Envy, and Success , 2015, SEMANTiCS.

[28]  Peter Schüller,et al.  Tackling Winograd Schemas by Formalizing Relevance Theory in Knowledge Graphs , 2014, KR.

[29]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  On our best behaviour , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[30]  A. M. Turing,et al.  Computing Machinery and Intelligence , 1950, The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.

[31]  K. Fine Vagueness, truth and logic , 1975, Synthese.

[32]  Chitta Baral,et al.  Towards Addressing the Winograd Schema Challenge - Building and Using a Semantic Parser and a Knowledge Hunting Module , 2015, IJCAI.

[33]  Robert LIN,et al.  NOTE ON FUZZY SETS , 2014 .

[34]  Geoffrey Zweig,et al.  Linguistic Regularities in Continuous Space Word Representations , 2013, NAACL.

[35]  John B. Lowe,et al.  The Berkeley FrameNet Project , 1998, ACL.

[36]  Leora Morgenstern,et al.  The Winograd Schema Challenge: Evaluating Progress in Commonsense Reasoning , 2015, AAAI.

[37]  Arpit Sharma,et al.  Solving Winograd Schema Challenge : Using Semantic Parsing, Automatic Knowledge Acquisition and Logical Reasoning , 2014 .

[38]  Brandon Bennett Modes of concept definition and varieties of vagueness , 2005, Appl. Ontology.

[39]  Dan Klein,et al.  Easy Victories and Uphill Battles in Coreference Resolution , 2013, EMNLP.

[40]  Frederick Hayes-Roth,et al.  Building expert systems , 1983, Advanced book program.

[41]  François Recanati,et al.  Pragmatics and Semantics , 2008 .

[42]  Catherine Havasi,et al.  Representing General Relational Knowledge in ConceptNet 5 , 2012, LREC.

[43]  Ernest Davis,et al.  Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence , 2015, Commun. ACM.