Using English for commonsense knowledge

What it is about

The paper argues for writing commonsense rules as English sentences, for example "eating fruit which contains vitamin C is good for X if X has scurvy", and for translating them into logical forms with a compositional grammar. A yes-or-no question is answered by theorem proving in property theory, and the explanation given to the user is taken from the proof tree. The examples are diet dialogues. The problems the authors discuss are intensional nouns and verbs, downward entailment (eating berries follows from eating fruit that contains vitamin C), paraphrase such as "allergic to" and "has an allergy to", which they normalise to one form during parsing rather than with two-way rules that loop, and the risk that proofs grow with the rule set. Proofs for the examples take about 0.1 second. The paper has no benchmark numbers; it is a design paper.

Ideas

• I1. Write commonsense rules as English sentences parsed by en into the frames that prag already reads (prag/src/frames.rs). A rule is then a sentence, not a hand-written formula, and the parse coverage of the rule set can be measured.
• I2. Downward entailment as a deterministic check: "good for X if the broader kind is good for X" uses the hypernyms in en/src/dict.rs. Test it on lesson questions about berries and fruit.
• I3. Normalise paraphrases at parse time to one frame, as the paper does during logical form construction, not as two-way rules, which avoids loops in the reasoner.
• I4. Explanations from the trace: each answer lists the rules it used, so a student's answer can say why. Measure the share of answers that have a rule trace.

For Mova

Chapters: 23. Complementation (propositional attitudes) and 19. The lexicon: vocabulary, multiword expressions and register. Code: prag/src/frames.rs, en/src/dict.rs, world/src/qa.rs. Measure: parse coverage of the rule sentences and the share of answers with a rule trace, run twice.

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

@inproceedings{ramsay2009using,
  title = {{Using English for commonsense knowledge}},
  author = {Ramsay, Allan and Field, Debora},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Semantics},
  year = {2009},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/W09-3717/}
}

References

17 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. P. Aczel (1988). Non-Well-Founded-Sets. CSLI Publications, Stanford. find
2. J. Barwise & J. Perry (1983). Situations and Attitudes. Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA. find
3. G. Bealer (1989). ‘Fine-grained type-free intensionality’. In G. Chierchia, B. H. Partee, & R. Turner (eds.), Properties, types and meaning: vol I, foundational issues. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London. find
4. G. Chierchia & R. Turner (1987). ‘Semantics and Property Theory’. Linguistics and Philosophy 11(3). find
5. M. Cryan & A. M. Ramsay (1997). ‘A Normal Form for Property Theory’. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-14), vol. 1249 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 237–251, Berlin. Springer-Verlag. find
6. I. Dagan, et al. (2005). ‘The PASCAL Recognising Textual Entailment Challenge’. In Proceedings of Pascal Challenge Workshop on Recognizing Textual Entailment. find
7. D. R. Dowty, et al. (1981). Introduction to Montague Semantics. D. Reidel, Dordrecht. find
8. K. Konrad, et al. (1996). ‘An education and research tool for computational semantics’. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-96), pp. 1098–1102, Copenhagen. find
9. R. Montague (1974). ‘The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English’. In R. Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, New Haven. Yale University Press. find
10. A. M. Ramsay (1995). ‘A Theorem Prover for an Intensional Logic’. Journal of Automated Reasoning 14:237–255. find
11. A. M. Ramsay (2001). ‘Theorem proving for untyped constructive λ-calculus: implementation and application’. Logic Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics 9(1):89–106. find
12. A. M. Ramsay & D. G. Field (2008). ‘Speech acts, epistemic planning and Grice’s maxims’. Logic and Computation 18:431–457. find
13. A. M. Ramsay & H. L. Seville (2001). ‘Relevant Answers to WH-questions’. In 3rd International Conference on Inference in Computational Semantics, pp. 73–86, Siena. find
14. S. M. Shieber, et al. (1990). ‘Semantic-Head-Driven Generation’. Computational Linguistics 16(1):30–42. find
15. L. Steels (1979). ‘Procedural attachment’. Tech. rep., MIT. find
16. R. Turner (1987). ‘A Theory of Properties’. Journal of Symbolic Logic 52(2):455– 472. find
17. J. van Genabith & R. Crouch (1997). ‘How to glue a donkey to an f-structure’. In H. C. Bunt, L. Kievit, R. Muskens, & M. Verlinden (eds.), 2nd International Workshop on Computational Semantics, pp. 52–65, University of Tilburg. find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/ramsay-2009-english-commonsense-knowledge/