Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:29:35.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Querying Knowledge via Multi-Hop English Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2019

TIANTIAN GAO Open the ORCID record for TIANTIAN GAO [Opens in a new window] ,
PAUL FODOR  and
MICHAEL KIFER
TIANTIAN GAO
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
PAUL FODOR
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
MICHAEL KIFER
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The inherent difficulty of knowledge specification and the lack of trained specialists are some of the key obstacles on the way to making intelligent systems based on the knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR) paradigm commonplace. Knowledge and query authoring using natural language, especially controlled natural language (CNL), is one of the promising approaches that could enable domain experts, who are not trained logicians, to both create formal knowledge and query it. In previous work, we introduced the KALM system (Knowledge Authoring Logic Machine) that supports knowledge authoring (and simple querying) with very high accuracy that at present is unachievable via machine learning approaches. The present paper expands on the question answering aspect of KALM and introduces KALM-QA (KALM for Question Answering) that is capable of answering much more complex English questions. We show that KALM-QA achieves 100% accuracy on an extensive suite of movie-related questions, called MetaQA, which contains almost 29,000 test questions and over 260,000 training questions. We contrast this with a published machine learning approach, which falls far short of this high mark.

Keywords

Controlled Natural LanguageKnowledge RepresentationReasoningQuestion Answering
Type
Original Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 19 , Special Issue 5-6: 35th International Conference on Logic Programming , September 2019 , pp. 636 - 653
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Angeli, G., Premkumar, M. J. J., and Manning, C. D. 2015. Leveraging linguistic structure for open domain information extraction. In 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL, Beijing, China, 344–354.Google Scholar
Bordes, A., Chopra, S., and Weston, J. 2014. Question answering with subgraph embeddings. In 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Moschitti, A., Pang, B., and Daelemans, W., Eds. ACL, Doha, Qatar, 615–620.Google Scholar
Das, D., Chen, D., Martins, A. F. T., Schneider, N., and Smith, N. A. 2014. Frame-semantic parsing. Comp, Linguistics 40, 1, 9–56.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. and Baker, C. F. 2001. Frame semantics for text understanding. In Proceedings of WordNet and Other Lexical Resources Workshop. NAACL, Pittsburgh, USA.Google Scholar
Fuchs, N. E., Kaljurand, K., and Kuhn, T. 2008. Attempto controlled english for knowledge representation. In Reasoning Web. Springer, Venice, Italy, 104–124.Google Scholar
Gao, T. 2019. Development of KALM-QA. Stony Brook University. https://github.com/tiantiangao7/kalm-qa.Google Scholar
Gao, T., Fodor, P., and Kifer, M. 2018a. High accuracy question answering via hybrid controlled natural language. In 2018 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI2018). IEEE, Santiago, Chile, 17–24.Google Scholar
Gao, T., Fodor, P., and Kifer, M. 2018b. Knowledge authoring for rule-based reasoning. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. OTM 2018 Conferences - Confederated International Conferences: CoopIS, C&TC, and ODBASE 2018, H. Panetto, C. Debruyne, H. A. Proper, C. A. Ardagna, D. Roman, and R. Meersman, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11230. Springer, Valletta, Malta, 461–480.Google Scholar
Gao, T., Fodor, P., and Kifer, M. 2019. Querying Knowledge via Multi-Hop English Questions. ArXiv e-prints abs/1907.08176, 1–19.Google Scholar
Gomez, F. 2008. The acquisition of common sense knowledge by being told: an application of nlp to itself. In International Conference on Application of Natural Language to Information Systems. Springer, London, UK, 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, F., Hull, R. D., and Segami, C. 1994. Acquiring knowledge from encyclopedic texts. In 4th Applied Natural Language Processing Conference (ANLP). ACL, Stuttgart, Germany, 84–90.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. R., Fillmore, C. J., Petruck, M. R., Baker, C. F., Ellsworth, M. J., Ruppenhofer, J., and Wood, E. J. 2002. FrameNet: Theory and Practice.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 2014. A survey and classification of controlled natural languages. Comp. Linguistics 40, 1, 121–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, F. and Jagadish, H. V. 2014. Constructing an interactive natural language interface for relational databases. PVLDB 8, 1, 73–84.Google Scholar
López, V., Fernández, M., Motta, E., and Stieler, N. 2012. PowerAqua: Supporting users in querying and exploring the semantic web. Semantic Web 3, 3, 249–265.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S. J., and McClosky, D. 2014. The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit.Google Scholar
Mausam, , Schmitz, M., Soderland, S., Bart, R., and Etzioni, O. 2012. Open language learning for information extraction. In The Joint Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, EMNLP-CoNLL. Association for Computational Linguistics, Jeju Island, Korea, 523–534.Google Scholar
Miller, A. H., Fisch, A., Dodge, J., Karimi, A., Bordes, A., and Weston, J. 2016. Key-value memory networks for directly reading documents. In 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), J. Su, X. Carreras, and K. Duh, Eds. The Association for Computational Linguistics, Austin, TX, 1400–1409.Google Scholar
Navigli, R. and Ponzetto, S. P. 2012. BabelNet: The automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artificial Intelligence 193, 217–250.Google Scholar
Object-Management-Group. 2017. Semantics of business vocabulary and business rules (SBVR), v. 1.4. OMG standards document. http://www.omg.org/spec/SBVR/Current.Google Scholar
Ringgaard, M., Gupta, R., and Pereira, F. C. N. 2017. SLING: A framework for frame semantic parsing. CoRR 1710.07032, 1–9.Google Scholar
Saha, D., Floratou, A., Sankaranarayanan, K., Minhas, U. F., Mittal, A. R., and Özcan, F. 2016. ATHENA: an ontology-driven system for natural language querying over relational data stores. PVLDB 9, 12, 1209–1220.Google Scholar
Schwitter, R. 2010. Controlled natural languages for knowledge representation. In COLING 2010, 23rd Intl. Conf. on Computational Linguistics, Posters Volume, 23-27. ACL, Beijing, China, 1113–1121.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Dai, H., Kozareva, Z., Smola, A. J., and Song, L. 2018a. The MetaQA dataset. https://github.com/yuyuz/MetaQA.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Dai, H., Kozareva, Z., Smola, A. J., and Song, L. 2018b. Variational reasoning for question answering with knowledge graph. See McIlraith and Weinberger (2018), 6069–6076.Google Scholar