Abstract
Many recent proposals aim to simplify semantic representations, and Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) comes from this tradition, but it is nevertheless quite expressive. Bos 2016 proposes a slightly reformed AMR for translation to first order logic. This paper proposes a different augmentation of AMR that is more easily provided, and a slightly different mapping to higher order and dynamic logic. The proposed augmentation can be, at least in most cases, easily computed from standard ‘unreformed’ AMR corpora. The mapping from this augmented AMR to logical representation is a finite state multi bottom up tree transduction.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
A tree decomposition of undirected graph g = (V,R) is a tree t = (U,S) where (i) \(\bigcup _{\hbox {u}\in \hbox {U}}\hbox {u}=\hbox {V}\), (ii) if an arc in g connects \(\hbox {v}_i\) and \(\hbox {v}_j\), then some \(\hbox {u}\in \hbox {U}\) contains both \(\hbox {v}_i\) and \(\hbox {v}_j\), and (iii) if some node \(\hbox {v}\) of g is in two nodes \(\hbox {u}_i,\hbox {u}_j\) of U, then \(\hbox {v}\) is in every node on the path between \(\hbox {u}_i\) and \(\hbox {u}_j\). The treewidth of a decomposition is max\(_{\hbox {u}\in \hbox {U}}|\hbox {u}|-1\). The treewidth of g is the minimum treewidth over all decompositions of g. Many problems have complexities that increase with treewidth [7, 20], and Courcelle’s theorem relates treewidth to MSO definability [15]. Computing treewidth is NP-complete, but code for computing treewidth of small graphs is available at [1].
- 2.
HOL with generalized quantifiers is introduced, for example, in Carpenter’s [11, Sect. 3]. Like Carpenter, we write \(\forall x\phi \) for \(\hbox {every}(\lambda x.\phi )\), and \(\exists x\phi \) similarly.
- 3.
The correspondence between AAMR subgraphs and elements of the input string is sometimes given by hand-specified alignments, and there are a number of proposals about how to compute them when hand-specifications are not available [13, 17]. Note that “:polarity -” will be aligned with the negation in the input string. In the example above with ‘most’ and ‘not’, the surface order and the alphanumeric order coincide.
- 4.
The discussion in Hobbs and Shieber has an error that does not affect their main point. Their example sentence is not talking about things that are both representatives and also of-some-company – that doesn’t quite make sense intuitively, and in fact gets the wrong entailments; see e.g. [37]. Rather, representative is relational and of some company specifies one of its arguments. We rephrase the Hobbs and Shieber argument here without that mistake. In the LDC AMR corpus [27], representative is treated relationally as it should be, as denoting an :arg0-of the predicate represent-01, where :arg0 is the representer and :arg1 is the thing represented.
- 5.
Here we focus on the definite article, sketching briefly the fundamental change to a dynamic perspective. But indefinite articles are even trickier and complicate the picture of how scope works, impeding progress until it was recognized that they require special treatment. As discussed for example in Kratzer [28] and references cited there, they are unlike quantifiers like every or three, unlike referential expressions formed with the, and not adequately handled by the discourse closure proposed by Heim [22] and DRT [25]. See e.g. [10].
References
Adler, I., Dell, H., Husfeldt, T., Larisch, L., Salfelder, F.: The parameterized algorithms and computational experiments challenge - Track A: Treewidth (2016). https://pacechallenge.wordpress.com/pace-2016/track-a-treewidth/
Allen, J.F., Swift, M., de Beaumont, W.: Deep semantic analysis of text. In: ACL, SIGSEM Symposium on Semantics in Systems for Text Processing (STEP) (2008)
Artzi, Y., Lee, K., Zettlemoyer, L.: Broad-coverage CCG semantic parsing with AMR. In: 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1699–1710 (2015)
Banarescu, L., Bonial, C., Cai, S., Georgescu, M., Griffitt, K., Hermjakob, U., Knight, K., Koehn, P., Palmer, M., Schneider, N.: Abstract meaning representation for sembanking. In: Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, pp. 178–186 (2013)
Banarescu, L., Bonial, C., Cai, S., Georgescu, M., Griffitt, K., Hermjakob, U., Knight, K., Koehn, P., Palmer, M., Schneider, N.: Abstract meaning representation 1.2.2 specification (2015). https://github.com/amrisi/amr-guidelines/blob/master/amr.md. Accessed 18 Sept 2015
Bender, E.M., Flickinger, D., Oepen, S., Packard, W., Copestake, A.: Layers of interpretation: on grammar and compositionality. In: 11th International Conference on Computational Semantics, pp. 239–249 (2015)
Bienvenu, M., Kikot, S., Podolskii, V.: Tree-like queries in OWL 2 QL: succinctness and complexity results (2015). https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.3047
Bonial, C., Babko-Malaya, O., Choi, J.D., Hwang, J., Palmer, M.: http://clear.colorado.edu/compsem/documents/propbank_guidelines.pdf (2010)
Bos, J.: Expressive power of abstract meaning representations. Comput. Linguit. 42(3), 527–535 (2016)
Brasoveanu, A., Farkas, D.F.: How indefinites choose their scope. Linguist. Philos. 34, 1–55 (2011)
Carpenter, B.: Type-Logical Semantics. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)
Champollion, L.: The interaction of compositional semantics and event semantics. Linguist. Philos. 38(1), 31–66 (2015)
Chen, W.T., Palmer, M.: Unsupervised AMR-dependency parse alignment. In: 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2017)
Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C., Sag, I.: Minimal recursion semantics: an introduction. Res. Lang. Comput. 3, 281–332 (2005)
Courcelle, B., Engelfriet, J.: Graph Structure and Monadic Second-Order Logic. Cambridge University Press, New York (2012)
Engelfriet, J., Lilin, E., Maletti, A.: Composition and decomposition of extended multi bottom-up tree transducers. Acta Informatica 46(8), 561–590 (2009)
Flanigan, J., Thomson, S., Carbonell, J., Dyer, C., Smith, N.A.: A discriminative graph-based parser for the abstract meaning representation. In: Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2014)
Fülöp, Z., Kühnemann, A., Vogler, H.: A bottom-up characterization of deterministic top-down tree transducers with regular look-ahead. Inf. Process. Lett. 91, 57–67 (2004)
Fülöp, Z., Kühnemann, A., Vogler, H.: Linear deterministic multi bottom-up tree transducers. Theor. Comput. Sci. 347, 276–287 (2005)
Ganian, R., Hliněný, P., Kneis, J., Langer, A., Obdržálek, J., Rossmanith, P.: Digraph width measures in parameterized algorithmics. Discrete Appl. Math. 168, 88–107 (2014)
de Groote, P.: Towards a Montagovian account of dynamics. In: Semantics and Linguistic Theory 16 (2006)
Heim, I.: The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1982)
Hobbs, J.R., Shieber, S.M.: An algorithm for generating quantifier scopings. Comput. Linguist. 13, 47–63 (1987)
Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a web ontology language. Web Semant. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 1, 7–26 (2003)
Kamp, H.: A theory of truth and semantic representation. In: Groenendijk, G., Janssen, T., Stokhof, M. (eds.) Formal Methods in the Study of Language. Mathematisch Centrum, Amsterdam (1981)
Keenan, E.L.: Further beyond the Frege boundary. In: van der Does, J., van Eijck, J. (eds.) Quantifiers, Logic, and Language. CSLI Publications, Amsterdam (1996)
Knight, K., et al.: Abstract meaning representation (AMR) annotation release 1.0 (2014). https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2014T12, http://amr.isi.edu/download.html
Kratzer, A.: Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In: Rothstein, S. (ed.) Events and Grammar. Springer, Dordrecht (1998)
Landau, I.: Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge University Press, New York (2013)
Landman, F.: Plurality. In: Lappin, S. (ed.) Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pp. 425–457. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)
Langekilde, I., Knight, K.: Generation that exploits corpus-based statistical knowledge. In: 36th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 704–710 (1998)
Lebedeva, E.: Expression de la dynamique du discours a l’aide de continuations. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Lorraine (2012)
Maletti, A.: The power of weighted regularity-preserving multi bottom-up tree transducers. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 26(7), 293–305 (2015)
Montague, R.: Pragmatics. In: Thomason, R.H. (ed.) Formal Philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1968/1974
Morgenstern, L., Davis, E., Ortiz, C.L.: Planning, executing, and evaluating the Winograd schema challenge. AI Mag. 37(1), 50–54 (2016)
Muskens, R.: Order-independence and underspecification. In: Kamp, H., Partee, B. (eds.) Context-dependence in the Analysis of Linguistic Meaning, pp. 239–254. Elsevier (2004)
Partee, B.H., Borschev, V.: Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In: Lang, E., Maienborn, C., Fabricius-Hansen, C. (eds.) Modifying Adjuncts, pp. 67–112. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2003)
Peters, P.S., Westerståhl, D.: Quantifiers in Language and Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)
Szabolcsi, A.: Quantification. Cambridge University Press, New York (2010)
van Lambalgen, M., Hamm, F.: The Proper Treatment of Events. Blackwell, Oxford (2005)
Weischedel, R., Pradhan, S., Ramshaw, L., Kaufman, J., Franchini, M., El-Bachouti, M.: https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/docs/LDC2013T19/OntoNotes-Release-5.0.pdf (2015)
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany
About this paper
Cite this paper
Stabler, E. (2018). Reforming AMR. In: Foret, A., Muskens, R., Pogodalla, S. (eds) Formal Grammar . FG 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10686. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56343-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56343-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-56342-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-56343-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)