Abstract
By determining those added assumptions sufficient to make the logical form of a natural-language sentence provable, abductive inference can be used in the interpretation of sentences to determine the information to be added to the listener's knowledge, i.e., what the listener should learn from the sentence. Some new forms of abduction are more appropriate to the task of interpreting natural language than those used in the traditional diagnostic and design synthesis applications of abduction. In one new form, least specific abduction, only literals in the logical form of the sentence can be assumed. The assignment of numeric costs to axioms and assumable literals permits specification of preferences on different abductive explanations. Least specific abduction is sometimes too restrictive. Better explanations can sometimes be found if literals obtained by backward chaining can also be assumed. Assumption costs for such literals are determined by the assumption costs of literals in the logical form and functions attached to the antecedents of the implications. There is a new Prolog-like inference system that computes minimum-cost explanations for these abductive reasoning methods.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This research is supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, under Contract N00014-85-C-0013 with the Office of Naval Research, and by the National Science Foundation, under Grant CCR-8611116. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Science Foundation, or the United States government. Approved for public release. Distribution unlimited.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Andres, P.B. Theorem proving via general matings. Journal of the ACM 28, 2 (April 1981), 193–214.
Bibel, W. Automated Theorem Proving. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, West Germany, 1982.
Charniak, E. Motivation analysis, abductive unification, and nonmonotonic equality. Artificial Intelligence 34, 3 (April 1988), 275–295.
Cox, P.T. and T. Pietrzykowski. Causes for events: their computation and applications. Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Automated Deduction, Oxford, England, July 1986, 608–621.
Cox, P.T. and T. Pietrzykowski. General diagnosis by abductive inference. Proceedings of the 1987 Symposium on Logic Programming, San Francisco, California, August 1987, 183–189.
Finger, J.J. Exploiting Constraints in Design Synthesis. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California, February 1987.
Hobbs, J.R. and P. Martin. Local pragmatics. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Milan, Italy, August 1987, 520–523.
Hobbs, J.R., M. Stickel, P. Martin, and D. Edwards. Interpretation as abduction. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Buffalo, New York, June 1988, 95–103.
Loveland, D.W. A simplified format for the model elimination procedure. Journal of the ACM 16, 3 (July 1969), 349–363.
Loveland, D.W. Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis. North-Holland, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 1978.
Maier, D. and D.S. Warren. Computing with Logic. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, California, 1988.
Norvig, P. Inference in text understanding. Proceedings of the AAAI-87 Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, Washington, July 1987, 561–565.
Pople, H.E.,Jr. On the mechanization of abductive logic. Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stanford, California, August 1973, 147–152.
Post, S.D. Default reasoning through integer linear programming. Planning Research Corporation, McLean, Virginia, 1988.
Shostak, R.E. Refutation graphs. Artificial Intelligence 7, 1 (Springer 1976), 51–64.
Shostak, R.E. On the complexity of resolution derivations. Unpublished, 1976(?).
Stickel, M.E. A Prolog technology theorem prover: implementation by an extended Prolog compiler. Journal of Automated Reasoning 4, 4 (December 1988), 353–380.
Stickel, M.E. A Prolog-like inference system for computing minimum-cost abductive explanations in natural-language interpretation. Proceedings of the International Computer Science Conference '88, Hong Kong, December 1988, 343–350.
Stickel, M.E. A Prolog technology theorem prover: a new exposition and implementation in Prolog. Technical Note 464, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, California, June 1989.
Stickel, M.E. and W.M. Tyson. An analysis of consecutively bounded depth-first search with applications in automated deduction. Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, California, August 1985, 1073–1075.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Stickel, M.E. (1990). Rationale and methods for abductive reasoning in natural-language interpretation. In: Studer, R. (eds) Natural Language and Logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 459. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-53082-7_26
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-53082-7_26
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-53082-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46653-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive