Implementing Natural Language Inference for comparatives

Haruta, Izumi; Mineshima, Koji; Bekki, Daisuke

doi:10.15398/jlm.v10i1.294

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Implementing Natural Language Inference for comparatives

Autorzy

Haruta Izumi , Mineshima Koji , Bekki Daisuke

Treść / Zawartość

Pełne teksty:

Pobierz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15398/jlm.v10i1.294

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

This paper presents a computational framework for Natural Language Inference (NLI) using logic-based semantic representations and theorem-proving. We focus on logical inferences with comparatives and other related constructions in English, which are known for their structural complexity and difficulty in performing efficient reasoning. Using the so-called A-not-A analysis of comparatives, we implement a fully automated system to map various comparative constructions to semantic representations in typed first-order logic via Combinatory Categorial Grammar parsers and to prove entailment relations via a theorem prover. We evaluate the system on a variety of NLI benchmarks that contain challenging inferences, in comparison with other recent logic-based systems and neural NLI models.

Słowa kluczowe

comparatives compositional semantics theorem proving Combinatory Categorial Grammar Natural Language Inference

Wydawca

Instytut Podstaw Informatyki PAN

Czasopismo

Journal of Language Modelling

Rocznik

2022

Tom

Vol. 10, No. 1

Strony

139--191

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 79 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Haruta Izumi

Ochanomizu University, Japan

autor

Mineshima Koji

minesima@abelard.flet.keio.ac.jp

Keio University, Japan

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2801-9171

autor

Bekki Daisuke

bekki@is.ocha.ac.jp

Ochanomizu University, Japan

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9988-1260

Bibliografia

1. Lasha ABZIANIDZE (2015), A tableau prover for natural logic and lganguage, in Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 2492–2502.
2. Lasha ABZIANIDZE (2016), Natural solution to FraCaS entailment problems, in Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM), pp. 64–74.
3. Stefano BACCIANELLA, Andrea ESULI, and Fabrizio SEBASTIANI (2010), SentiWordNet 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining, in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10), pp. 2000–2004.
4. Jon BARWISE and Robin COOPER (1981), Generalized quantifiers and natural language, Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(2):159–219.
5. Jean-Philippe BERNARDY and Stergios CHATZIKYRIAKIDIS (2017), A type-theoretical system for the FraCaS test suite: Grammatical Framework meets Coq, in IWCS 2017 – 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics.
6. Johan BOS (2008a), Let’s not argue about Semantics, in Nicoletta CALZOLARI, Khalid CHOUKRI, Bente MAEGAARD, Joseph MARIANI, Jan ODIJK, Stelios PIPERIDIS, and Daniel TAPIAS, editors, Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08), pp. 2835–2840.
7. Johan BOS (2008b), Wide-coverage semantic analysis with Boxer, in Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Semantics in Text Processing (STEP), pp. 277–286.
8. Samuel R. BOWMAN, Gabor ANGELI, Christopher POTTS, and Christopher D. MANNING (2015), A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference, in Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 632–642.
9. Richard BREHENY (2008), A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases, Journal of Semantics, 25(2):93–139.
10. Joan W. BRESNAN (1975), Comparative deletion and constraints on transformations, Linguistic Analysis, 1:25–74.
11. Greg CARLSON (1981), Distribution of free-choice Any, in Masek HENDRICK and MILLER, editors, Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 17, pp. 8–23.
12. Pierre CASTÉRAN and Yves BERTOT (2004), Interactive theorem proving and program development. Coq’Art: The Calculus of inductive constructions, Springer.
13. Lucas CHAMPOLLION (2015), The interaction of compositional semantics and event semantics, Linguistics and Philosophy, 38(1):31–66.
14. Stergios CHATZIKYRIAKIDIS and Jean-Philippe BERNARDY (2019), A wide-coverage symbolic natural language inference system, in Proceedings of the 22nd Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (NoDaLiDa), pp. 298–303.
15. Stergios CHATZIKYRIAKIDIS and Zhaohui LUO (2014), Natural language inference in Coq, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 23(4):441–480.
16. Gennaro CHIERCHIA (2004), Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface, in Adriana BELLETTI, editor, Structures and Beyond, pp. 39–103, Oxford University Press.
17. Timothy CHKLOVSKI and Patrick PANTEL (2004), VerbOcean: Mining the web for fine-grained semantic verb relations, in Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 33–40.
18. Stephen CLARK and James R CURRAN (2007), Wide-coverage efficient statistical parsing with CCG and log-linear Models, Computational Linguistics, 33(4):493–552.
19. Robin COOPER, Richard CROUCH, Jan VAN EIJCK, Chris FOX, Josef VAN GENABITH, Jan JASPERS, Hans KAMP, Manfred PINKAL, Massimo POESIO, Stephen G. PULMAN, et al. (1996), FraCaS – A framework for computational semantics, Deliverable D6.
20. Max J. CRESSWELL (1976), The semantics of degree, in Barbara PARTEE, editor, Montague Grammar, pp. 261–292, Academic Press.
21. Donald DAVIDSON (1967), The logical form of action sentences, in Nicholas RESCHER, editor, The Logic of Decision and Action, pp. 81–95, University of Pittsburgh Press.
22. Gerald GAZDAR (1979), Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form, Academic Press.
23. Martin HACKL (2000), Comparative Quantifiers, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
24. Michael HAHN and Frank RICHTER (2016), Henkin semantics for reasoning with natural language, Journal of Language Modelling, 3(2):513–568.
25. Izumi HARUTA, Koji MINESHIMA, and Daisuke BEKKI (2020), Combining event semantics and degree semantics for natural language inference, in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pp. 1758–1764.
26. Herman HENDRIKS (1993), Studied Flexibility: Categories and Types in Syntax and Semantics, Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.
27. Petra HENDRIKS (1995), Comparatives and Categorial Grammar, Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen.
28. Julia HOCKENMAIER and Mark STEEDMAN (2007), CCGbank: A corpus of CCG derivations and dependency structures extracted from the Penn Treebank, Computational Linguistics, 33(3):355–396.
29. Matthew HONNIBAL, James R. CURRAN, and Johan BOS (2010), Rebanking CCGbank for improved NP interpretation, in Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 207–215.
30. Laurence Robert HORN (1973), On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English, Ph.D. thesis, University of California.
31. Nirit KADMON and Fred LANDMAN (1993), Any, Linguistics and Philosophy, 16(4):353–422.
32. Aikaterini-Lida KALOULI and Richard CROUCH (2018), GKR: the graphical knowledge representation for semantic parsing, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Semantics beyond Events and Roles (SemBEaR), pp. 27–37.
33. Aikaterini-Lida KALOULI, Richard CROUCH, and Valeria DE PAIVA (2020), Hy-NLI: a hybrid system for natural language inference, in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pp. 5235–5249.
34. Hans KAMP (1975), Two theories about adjectives, in Edward L KEENAN, editor, Formal Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 123–155, Cambridge University Press.
35. Ewan KLEIN (1980), A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives, Linguistics and Philosophy, 4(1):1–45.
36. Ewan KLEIN (1982), The interpretation of adjectival comparatives, Journal of Linguistics, 18(1):113–136.
37. Ewan KLEIN (1991), Comparatives, in Arnim VON STECHOW and Dieter WUNDERLICH, editors, Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, pp. 673–691, de Gruyter.
38. Laura KOVÁCS and Andrei VORONKOV (2013), First-order theorem proving and Vampire, in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification, volume 8044, pp. 1–35.
39. William A. LADUSAW (1979), Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations, Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas.
40. George LAKOFF (1970), Linguistics and natural logic, Synthese, 22(1-2):151–271.
41. Richard K. LARSON (1988), Scope and comparatives, Linguistics and Philosophy, 11(1):1–26.
42. Peter N. LASERSOHN (2006), Event-based semantics, in Keith BROWN, editor, Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, volume 4, pp. 316–320.
43. Daniel LASSITER (2015), Adjectival modification and gradation, in The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 141–167, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
44. Adrienne LEHRER and Keith LEHRER (1982), Antonymy, Linguistics and Philosophy, 5(4):483–501.
45. Roger LEVY and Galen ANDREW (2006), Tregex and Tsurgeon: tools for querying and manipulating tree data structures, in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’06), pp. 2231–2234.
46. David LEWIS (1972), General semantics, in Donald DAVIDSON and Gilbert HARMAN, editors, Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 169–218, Springer.
47. Mike LEWIS and Mark STEEDMAN (2014), A* CCG parsing with a supertag-factored model, in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 990–1000.
48. Godehard LINK (1983), The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretic approach, in Paul PORTNER and Barbara H. PARTEE, editors, Formal Semantics – the Essential Readings, pp. 127–147, Blackwell.
49. Yinhan LIU, Myle OTT, Naman GOYAL, Jingfei DU, Mandar JOSHI, Danqi CHEN, Omer LEVY, Mike LEWIS, Luke ZETTLEMOYER, and Veselin STOYANOV (2019), RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692.
50. Marco MARELLI, Stefano MENINI, Marco BARONI, Luisa BENTIVOGLI, Raffaella BERNARDI, and Roberto ZAMPARELLI (2014), A SICK cure for the evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models, in Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14), pp. 216–223.
51. Pascual MARTÍNEZ-GÓMEZ, Koji MINESHIMA, Yusuke MIYAO, and Daisuke BEKKI (2016), ccg2lambda: A compositional semantics system, in Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), System Demonstrations, pp. 85–90.
52. Pascual MARTÍNEZ-GÓMEZ, Koji MINESHIMA, Yusuke MIYAO, and Daisuke BEKKI (2017), On-demand injection of lexical knowledge for recognising textual entailment, in Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), pp. 710–720.
53. Tom MCCOY, Ellie PAVLICK, and Tal LINZEN (2019), Right for the wrong Reasons: diagnosing syntactic heuristics in natural language inference, in Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 3428–3448.
54. George A. MILLER (1995), WordNet: A lexical database for English, Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39–41.
55. Koji MINESHIMA, Pascual MARTÍNEZ-GÓMEZ, Yusuke MIYAO, and Daisuke BEKKI (2015), Higher-order logical inference with compositional semantics, in Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 2055–2061.
56. Richard MONTAGUE (1970), Universal grammar, Theoria, 36(3):373–398.
57. Glyn MORRILL and Oriol VALENTÍN (2016), Computational coverage of type logical grammar: The Montague test, Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, 11:1–30.
58. Marcin MORZYCKI (2016), Modification, Cambridge University Press.
59. Katsuma NARISAWA, Yotaro WATANABE, Junta MIZUNO, Naoaki OKAZAKI, and Kentaro INUI (2013), Is a 204 cm man tall or small? Acquisition of numerical common sense from the web, in Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 382–391.
60. Terence PARSONS (1990), Events in the Semantics of English, MIT Press. Barbara H. PARTEE (1988), Many quantifiers, in Proceedings of the 5th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL), pp. 383–402.
61. Barbara H. PARTEE (2007), Compositionality and coercion in semantics: The dynamics of adjective meaning, in Gerlof BOUMA et al., editors, Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, pp. 145–161.
62. Sandro PEZZELLE and Raquel FERNÁNDEZ (2019), Is the red square big? MALeViC: Modeling adjectives leveraging visual contexts, in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pp. 2865–2876.
63. Stephen G. PULMAN (2007), Formal and computational semantics: A case study, in Jeroen GEERTZEN, Elias THIJSSE, Harry BUNT, and Amanda SCHIFFRIN, editors, Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computational Semantics: IWCS-7, Tilburg, The Netherlands, 2007, pp. 181–196.
64. Stephen G. PULMAN (2018), Second order inference in natural language semantics, Journal of Language Modelling, 6(1):1–40.
65. Jessica RETT (2018), The semantics of many, much, few, and little, Language and Linguistics Compass, 12(1):e12269.
66. John Robert ROSS (1970), Gapping and the order of constituents, in Manfred BIERWISCH and Karl E. HEIDOLPH, editors, Progress in Linguistics, pp. 249–259, De Gruyter Mouton.
67. Roger SCHWARZSCHILD (2008), The semantics of comparatives and other degree constructions, Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(2):308–331.
68. Pieter A. M. SEUREN (1973), The comparative, in Ferenc KIEFER and Nicolas RUWET, editors, Generative Grammar in Europe, pp. 528–564, Riedel.
69. Benjamin SPECTOR (2013), Bare numerals and scalar implicatures, Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(5):273–294.
70. Mark STEEDMAN (1996), Surface Structure and Interpretation, MIT Press. Mark STEEDMAN (2000), The Syntactic Process, MIT Press.
71. Geoff SUTCLIFFE (2017), The TPTP problem library and associated infrastructure, Journal of Automated Reasoning, 59(4):483–502.
72. Geoff SUTCLIFFE, Stephan SCHULZ, Koen CLAESSEN, and Peter BAUMGARTNER (2012), The TPTP typed first-order form with arithmetic, in Nikolaj BJØRNER and Andrei VORONKOV, editors, Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, pp. 406–419, Springer.
73. Anna SZABOLCSI (2010), Quantification, Cambridge University Press. Johan VAN BENTHEM (1986), Essays in Logical Semantics, Springer.
74. Robert VAN ROOIJ and Katrin SCHULZ (2004), Exhaustive interpretation of complex sentences, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 13(4):491–519.
75. Dag WESTERSTAÅHL (2007), Quantifiers in formal and natural languages, in Dov M. GABBAY and Franz GUENTHNER, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 14, pp. 223–338, Springer.
76. Adina WILLIAMS, Nikita NANGIA, and Samuel BOWMAN (2018), A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sentence understanding through inference, in Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT), pp. 1112–1122.
77. Yadollah YAGHOOBZADEH, Remi TACHET, Timothy J. HAZEN, and Alessandro SORDONI (2019), Robust natural language inference models with example forgetting, arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03861.
78. Hitomi YANAKA, Koji MINESHIMA, Daisuke BEKKI, Kentaro INUI, Satoshi SEKINE, Lasha ABZIANIDZE, and Johan BOS (2019), Can neural networks understand monotonicity reasoning?, in Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pp. 31–40.
79. Masashi YOSHIKAWA, Hiroshi NOJI, and Yuji MATSUMOTO (2017), A* CCG parsing with a supertag and dependency factored model, in Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 277–287

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-8df561dd-1b1b-428c-96d7-dc7ad72d5a68