1 / 73

This lecture

Working with Discourse Representation Theory Patrick Blackburn & Johan Bos Lecture 3 DRT and Inference. This lecture. Now that we know how to build DRSs for English sentences, what do we do with them? Well, we can use DRSs to draw inferences.

paley
Télécharger la présentation

This lecture

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Working with Discourse Representation TheoryPatrick Blackburn & Johan BosLecture 3DRT and Inference

  2. This lecture • Now that we know how to build DRSs for English sentences, what do we do with them? • Well, we can use DRSs to draw inferences. • In this lecture we show how to do that, both in theory and in practice.

  3. Overview • Inference tasks • Why FOL? • From model theory to proof theory • Inference engines • From DRT to FOL • Adding world knowledge • Doing it locally

  4. The inference tasks • The consistency checking task • The informativity checking task

  5. Why First-Order Logic? • Why not use higher-order logic? • Better match with formal semantics • But: Undecidable/no fast provers available • Why not use weaker logics? • Modal/description logics (decidable fragments) • But: Can’t cope with all of natural language • Why use first-order logic? • Undecidable, but good inference tools available • DRS translation to first-order logic • Easy to add world knowledge

  6. Axioms encode world knowledge • We can write down axioms about the information that we find fundamental • For example, lexical knowledge, world knowledge, information about the structure of time, events, etc. • By the Deduction Theorem1 … n |=  iff |= 1& … & n   • That is, inference reduces to validity of formulas.

  7. From model theory to proof theory • The inference tasks were defined semantically • For computational purposes, we need symbolic definitions • We need to move from the concept of |= to |-- • In other words, from validity to provability

  8. Soundness • If provable then valid: If |--  then |=  • Soundness is a `no garbage` condition

  9. Completeness • If valid then provable If |=  then |--  • Completeness means that proof theory has captured model theory

  10. Decidability • A problem is decidable, if a computer is guaranteed to halt in finite time on any input and give you a correct answer • A problem that is not decidable, is undecidable

  11. First-order logic is undecidable • What does this mean? It is not possible, to write a program that is guaranteed to halt when given any first-order formula and correctly tell you whether or not that formula is valid. • Sounds pretty bad!

  12. Good news • FOL is semi-decidable • What does that mean? • If in fact a formula is valid, it is always possible, to symbolically verify this fact in finite time • That is, things are only going wrong for FOL when it is asked to tackle something that is not valid • On some non-valid input, any algorithm is bound not to terminate

  13. Put differently • Half the task, namely determining validity, is fairly reasonable. • The other half of the task, showing non-validity, or equivalenty, satisfiability, is harder. • This duality is reflected in the fact that there are two fundamental computational inference tools for FOL: • theorem provers • and model builders

  14. Theorem provers • Basic thing they do is show that a formula is provable/valid. • There are many efficient off-the-shelf provers available for FOL • Theorem proving technology is now nearly 40 years old and extremely sophisticated • Examples: Vampire, Spass, Bliksem, Otter

  15. Theorem provers and informativity • Given a formula , a theorem prover will try to prove , that is, to show that it is valid/uninformative • If  is valid/uninformative, in theory, the theorem prover will always succeedSo theorem provers are a negative test for informativity • If the formula  is not valid/uninformative, all bets are off.

  16. Theorem provers and consistency • Given a formula , a theorem prover will try to prove , that is, to show that  is inconsistent • If  is inconsistent, in theory, the theorem prover will always succeedSo theorem provers are also a negative test for consistency • If the formula  is not inconsistent, all bets are off.

  17. Model builders • Basic thing that model builders do is try to generate a [usually] finite model for a formula. They do so by iteration over model size. • Model building for FOL is a rather new field, and there are not many model builders available. • It is also an intrinsically hard task; harder than theorem proving. • Examples: Mace, Paradox, Sem.

  18. Model builders and consistency • Given a formula , a model builder will try to build a model for , that is, to show that  is consistent • If  is consistent, and satisfiable on a finite model, then, in theory, the model builder will always succeedSo model builders are a partial positive test for consistency • If the formula  is not consistent, or it is not satisfiable on a finite model, all bets are off.

  19. Finite model property • A logic has the finite model property, if every satisfiable formula is satisfiable on a finite model. • Many decidable logics have this property. • But it is easy to see that FOL lacks this property.

  20. Model builders and informativity • Given a formula , a model builder will try to build a model for , that is, to show that  is informative • If  is satisfiable on a finite model, then, in theory, the model builder will always succeedSo model builders are a partial positive test for informativity • If the formula  is not satisfiable on a finite model all bets are off.

  21. Yin and Yang of Inference • Theorem Proving and Model Building function as opposite forces

  22. Doing it in parallel • We have general negative tests [theorem provers], and partial positive tests [model builders] • Why not try to get of both worlds, by running these tests in parallel? • That is, given a formula we wish to test for informativity/consistency, we hand it to both a theorem prover and model builder at once • When one succeeds, we halt the other

  23. Parallel Consistency Checking • Suppose we want to test  [representing the latest sentence] for consistency wrto the previous discourse • Then: • If a theorem prover succeeds in finding a proof for PREV , then it is inconsistent • If a model builder succeeds to construct a model for PREV & , then it is consistent

  24. Why is this relevant to natural language? • Testing a discourse for consistency

  25. Why is this relevant to natural language? • Testing a discourse for consistency

  26. Why is this relevant to natural language? • Testing a discourse for consistency

  27. Why is this relevant to natural language? • Testing a discourse for consistency

  28. Parallel informativity checking • Suppose we want to test the formula [representing the latest sentence] for informativity wrto the previous discourse • Then: • If a theorem prover succeeds in finding a proof for PREV  , then it is not informative • If a model builder succeeds to construct a model for PREV & , then it is informative

  29. Why is this relevant to natural language? • Testing a discourse for informativity

  30. Why is this relevant to natural language? • Testing a discourse for informativity

  31. Why is this relevant to natural language? • Testing a discourse for informativity

  32. Why is this relevant to natural language? • Testing a discourse for informativity

  33. Let`s apply this to DRT • Pretty clear what we need to do: • Find efficient theorem provers for DRT • Find efficient model builders for DRT • Run them in parallel • And Bob`s your uncle! • Recall that theorem provers are more established technology than model builders • So let`s start by finding an efficient theorem prover for DRT…

  34. Googling theorem provers for DRT

  35. Theorem proving in DRT • Oh no!Nothing there, efficient or otherwise. • Let`s build our own one. • One phone call to Voronkov later: • Oops --- does it take that long to build one from scratch? • Oh dear.

  36. Googling theorem provers for FOL

  37. Use FOL inference technology for DRT • There are a lot FOL provers available and they are extremely efficient • There are also some interesting freely available model builders for FOL • We have said several times, that DRT is FOL in disguise, so lets get precise about this and put this observation to work

  38. From DRT to FOL • Compile DRS into standard FOL syntax • Use off-the-shelf inference engines for FOL • Okay --- how do we do this? • Translation function (…)fo

  39. Translating DRT to FOL: DRSs ( )fo = x1… xn((C1)fo&…&(Cn)fo)

  40. Translating DRT to FOL: Conditions (R(x1…xn))fo = R(x1…xn) (x1=x2)fo = x1=x2 (B)fo = (B)fo (B1B2)fo = (B1)fo (B2)fo

  41. Translating DRT to FOL:Implicative DRS-conditions ( B)fo = x1…xm(((C1)fo&…&(Cn)fo)(B)fo)

  42. Two example translations • Example 1 • Example 2

  43. Example 1

  44. Example 1 ( )fo

  45. Example 1 x( (man(x))fo & (walk(x))fo)

  46. Example 1 x(man(x) & (walk(x))fo)

  47. Example 1 x(man(x) & walk(x))

  48. Example 2

  49. Example 2 ( )fo

  50. Example 2 (woman(y))fo & ( )fo ) y ( 

More Related