Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-16T19:42:35.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Specifying and Verbalising Answer Set Programs in Controlled Natural Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2018

ROLF SCHWITTER Open the ORCID record for ROLF SCHWITTER [Opens in a new window]
ROLF SCHWITTER*
Affiliation:
Department of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia (e-mail: [email protected])
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We show how a bi-directional grammar can be used to specify and verbalise answer set programs in controlled natural language. We start from a program specification in controlled natural language and translate this specification automatically into an executable answer set program. The resulting answer set program can be modified following certain naming conventions and the revised version of the program can then be verbalised in the same subset of natural language that was used as specification language. The bi-directional grammar is parametrised for processing and generation, deals with referring expressions, and exploits symmetries in the data structure of the grammar rules whenever these grammar rules need to be duplicated. We demonstrate that verbalisation requires sentence planning in order to aggregate similar structures with the aim to improve the readability of the generated specification. Without modifications, the generated specification is always semantically equivalent to the original one; our bi-directional grammar is the first one that allows for semantic round-tripping in the context of controlled natural language processing.

Keywords

Bi-directional grammarscontrolled natural languagesanswer set programmingsentence planningexecutable specifications
Type
Original Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 18 , Special Issue 3-4: 34th International Conference on Logic Programming , July 2018 , pp. 691 - 705
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

References

Bailey, D., Harrison, A., Lierler, Y., Lifschitz, V. and Michael, J. 2015. The Winograd Schema Challenge and Reasoning about Correlation. Working Notes of the Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning.Google Scholar
Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baral, C., Dzifcak, J., Gonzalez, M. A. and Zhou, J. 2011. Using Inverse λ and Generalization to Translate English to Formal Languages. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference in Computational Semantics, 35–44.Google Scholar
Clark, P., Harrison, P., Jenkins, T., Thompson, J. and Wojcik, R. 2005. Acquiring and Using World Knowledge using a Restricted Subset of English. The 18th International FLAIRS Conference (FLAIRS'05), 506–511.Google Scholar
Demirel, E., Gur, K. D., and Erdem, E. 2016. Human-Robot Interaction in a Shopping Mall: A CNL Approach. CNL 2016, 111–122.Google Scholar
Erdem, E. and Yeniterzi, R. 2009. Transforming controlled natural language biomedical queries into answer set programs. Proceedings of the Workshop on BioNLP, 117–124.Google Scholar
Erdem, E. and Öztok, U. 2015. Generating explanations for biomedical queries. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, Volume 15, Issue 1, 35–78.Google Scholar
Fuchs, N. E., Kaljurand, K. and Kuhn, T. 2008. Attempto Controlled English for Knowledge Representation. Reasoning Web, Fourth International Summer School 2008, LNCS 5224, 104–124.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B. and Schaub, T. 2012. Answer Set Solving in Practice, Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Lindauer, M., Ostrowski, M., Romero, J., Schaub, T. and Thiele, S. 2017. Potassco User Guide, Version 2.1.0, available at: https://github.com/potassco/guide/releases/, October 2017.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Geurts, B., Beaver, D. I. and Maier, E. 2015. Discourse Representation Theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/discourse-representation-theory/, 24th December, 2015.Google Scholar
Guy, S. and Schwitter, R. 2017. The PENGASP System: Architecture, Language and Authoring Tool. Journal of Language Resources and Evaluation, Special Issue: Controlled Natural Language, Vol. 51, Issue 1, 67–92.Google Scholar
Horacek, H. 2015. New Concepts in Natural Language Generation: Planning, Realization and Systems. Linguistic Communication in Artificial Intelligence, Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 2007. AceRules: Executing Rules in Controlled Natural Language. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR2007), LNCS, 299–308.Google Scholar
Lierler, Y. and Schüller, P. 2012. Parsing Combinatory Categorial Grammar via Planning in Answer Set Programming. Correct Reasoning, Springer, 436–453.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. 2008. What is Answer Set Programming? Proceedings of AAAI, 1594–1597.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. V., Mitra, A. and Baral, C. 2015. The NL2KR Platform for building Natural Language Translation Systems. Proceedings of ACL, 899–908.Google Scholar
Pereira, F. C. N. and Warren, D. H. D. 1980. Definite Clause Grammars for Language Analysis – A Survey of the Formalism and a Comparison with Augmented Transition Networks. Artificial Intelligence, No. 13, 231–278.Google Scholar
Pereira, F. C. N. and Shieber, S. M. 1987. Prolog and Natural-Language Analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reiter, E. and Dale, R. 2000. Building Natural Language Generation Systems. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schüller, P. 2013. Flexible Combinatory Categorial Grammar using the CYK Algorithm and Answer Set Programming. LPNMR, 499–511.Google Scholar
Schüller, P. 2014. Tackling Winograd Schemas by Formalizing Relevance Theory in Knowledge Graphs. International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), 358–367.Google Scholar
Schwitter, R. 2008. Working for Two: a Bidirectional Grammar for a Controlled Natural Language. Proceedings of AI 2008, LNAI 5360, 168–179.Google Scholar
Sowa, J. F. 2004. Common Logic Controlled English. Draft, available at: http://www.jfsowa.com/clce/specs.htm, 24 February 2004.Google Scholar
Sterling, L. S. and Shapiro, E. Y. 1994. The Art of Prolog, Advanced Programming Techniques. Second Edition, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tari, L. and Baral, C. 2005. Using AnsProlog with Link Grammar and WordNet for QA with deep reasoning. AAAI Spring Symposium Workshop on Inference for Textual Question Answering.Google Scholar