Non-Axiomatic Logic Modeling of English Texts for Knowledge Discovery and Commonsense Reasoning
Source abstract
Abstract
Non-axiomatic logic (NAL) is a term-based, non-monotonic, multi-valued logic with evidence-based formal semantics. All those characteristics position NAL as an excellent candidate for modeling natural language expressions and supporting artificial agents while performing knowledge discovery and commonsense reasoning tasks. In this article, we propose a set of rules for the automatic translation of natural language (NL) text into the formal language of non-axiomatic logic (NAL). Several free available tools are used to support a previous linguistic analysis, and a common sense ontology is used to populate a background knowledge base that helps to delimit the scope and the semantics of logical formulas translated. Experimentation shows our set to be the most comprehensive NL-to-NAL translation rule set known so far. Furthermore, we included an extensive set of examples to show how our proposed set of rules can be used for translating a wide range of English statements with varying grammatical structures.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Natural Language Processing Techniques · Semantic Web and Ontologies · Topic Modeling
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Centro de Investigación en Computación, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Mexico City 07738, Mexico
Funding
Secretaría de Investigación y Posgrado (SIP-IPN)
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence10.1145/2701413 ↗
2. Sap, M., Shwartz, V., Bosselut, A., Choi, Y., and Roth, D. (2020, January 5–10). Commonsense reasoning for natural language processing. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Tutorial Abstracts, Online.10.18653/v1/2020.acl-tutorials.7 ↗
3. McCarthy, J. (1959). Programs with Common Sense, Taylor & Francis.
4. Richardson, C., and Heck, L. (2023). Commonsense reasoning for conversational AI: A survey of the state of the art. arXiv.
5. Logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning: A survey10.1613/jair.5339 ↗
6. McCarthy, J. (1990). Formalizing Common Sense, Intellect Books.
7. McCarthy, J., and Buvac, S. (August, January 31). Formalizing context. Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Context in Knowledge Representation, Seattle, WA, USA.
8. Waismann, F. (1979). Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle, Basil Blackwell.
9. Wang, P. (2019). Blended Cognition: The Robotic Challenge, Springer.
10. From inheritance relation to non-axiomatic logic10.1016/0888-613X(94)90021-3 ↗
11. Slam, N., Wang, W., and Wang, P. (2014, January 11–14). An improvisational decision-making agent based on non-axiomatic reasoning system. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT), Warsaw, Poland.10.1109/WI-IAT.2014.189 ↗
12. Han, S., Schoelkopf, H., Zhao, Y., Qi, Z., Riddell, M., Benson, L., Sun, L., Zubova, E., Qiao, Y., and Burtell, M. (2022). FOLIO: Natural language reasoning with first-order logic. arXiv.
13. A logic for natural language10.1305/ndjfl/1093635837 ↗
14. Wang, P. (2013). Non-Axiomatic Logic: A Model of Intelligent Reasoning, World Scientific.10.1142/8665 ↗
15. Jackson, P.C. Toward human-level qualitative reasoning with a natural language of thought. Proceedings of the Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures Meeting.
16. Kryvyi, S., and Hoherchak, H. (2022, January 15–17). Analyzing Natural Language Knowledge Uncertainty. Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 4th International Conference on Advanced Trends in Information Theory (ATIT), Kyiv, Ukraine.10.1109/ATIT58178.2022.10024237 ↗
17. Dzifcak, J., Scheutz, M., Baral, C., and Schermerhorn, P. (2009, January 12–17). What to do and how to do it: Translating natural language directives into temporal and dynamic logic representation for goal management and action execution. Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Kobe, Japan.10.1109/ROBOT.2009.5152776 ↗
18. Wang, P. (2006). Rigid Flexibility, Springer.
19. Arai, K., Kapoor, S., and Bhatia, R. (2021). Intelligent Systems and Applications, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-55187-2 ↗
20. Goertzel, B., Iklé, M., Potapov, A., and Ponomaryov, D. (2023). International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, Springer.10.1007/978-3-031-19907-3 ↗
21. Wang, P. (August, January 31). Natural language processing by reasoning and learning. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence, Beijing, China.
22. Hammer, P. (2022, May 13). English to Narsese. Available online: https://github.com/opennars/OpenNARS-for-Applications.
23. Adi, Y., Kermany, E., Belinkov, Y., Lavi, O., and Goldberg, Y. (2016). Fine-grained analysis of sentence embeddings using auxiliary prediction tasks. arXiv.
24. Representation of linguistic form and function in recurrent neural networks10.1162/COLI_a_00300 ↗
25. Ranaldi, L., and Pucci, G. (2023). Knowing knowledge: Epistemological study of knowledge in Transformers. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13020677 ↗
26. McCoy, R.T., Pavlick, E., and Linzen, T. (2019). Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference. arXiv.10.18653/v1/P19-1334 ↗
27. oLMpics-On what language model pre-training captures10.1162/tacl_a_00342 ↗
28. Neuro-symbolic approaches in artificial intelligence10.1093/nsr/nwac035 ↗
29. Zanzotto, F.M., Santilli, A., Ranaldi, L., Onorati, D., Tommasino, P., and Fallucchi, F. (2020, January 16–20). KERMIT: Complementing Transformer architectures with Encoders of explicit syntactic interpretations. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Online.10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.18 ↗
30. Sinha, K., Sodhani, S., Dong, J., Pineau, J., and Hamilton, W.L. (2019). CLUTRR: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. arXiv.10.18653/v1/D19-1458 ↗
31. Hammer, P. (2023, August 31). NARS-GPT. Available online: https://github.com/opennars/NARS-GPT.
32. A logic of categorization10.1080/09528130600557549 ↗
33. Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations10.1016/0004-3702(94)90017-5 ↗
34. Lindes, P. (2022). Constructing Meaning, Piece by Piece: A Computational Cognitive Model of Human Sentence Comprehension. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan].
35. Frege, G. (1879). From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, Harvard University Press.
36. Mitkov, R. (2022). The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics, Oxford University Press.
37. Universal Dependencies
38. Jurafsky, D., and Martin, J. (1999). Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics and Speech Recognition, Prentice Hall.
39. Dan, K., and Manning, C. (2003, January 7–12). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sapporo, Japan.
40. Kapetanios, E., Tatar, D., and Sacarea, C. (2013). Natural Language Processing: Semantic Aspects, CRC Press.10.1201/b15472 ↗
41. Finkel, J.R., Grenager, T., and Manning, C. (2005, January 25–30). Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by Gibbs sampling. Proceedings of the 43nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.10.3115/1219840.1219885 ↗
42. WordNet: A lexical database for English10.1145/219717.219748 ↗
43. Schuler, K.K. (2005). VerbNet: A Broad-Coverage, Comprehensive Verb Lexicon, University of Pennsylvania.
44. (2023, August 28). Documentation of Universal Dependency Relations. Available online: https://universaldependencies.org/u/dep/index.html.
45. The emergence of meaning10.1007/BF00985971 ↗
46. Chabierski, P., Russo, A., and Law, M. (2023, August 28). Logic-Based Approach to Machine Comprehension of Text. Available online: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/faculty-of-engineering/computing/public/1617-ug-projects/Piotr-Chabierski—Logic-based-Approach-to-Machine-Comprehension-of-Text.pdf.
47. An empirical study of errors in translating natural language into logic
48. The interpretation of fuzziness10.1109/3477.485883 ↗
49. Kamp, H. (2013). Meaning and the Dynamics of Interpretation, Brill.10.1163/9789004252882 ↗
50. Wang, P. (2022). Axiomatic Reasoning in NARS, Temple University. Technical Report 15, AGI Team.