Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:20:32.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paraconsistency and word puzzles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2016

TIANTIAN GAO ,
PAUL FODOR  and
MICHAEL KIFER
TIANTIAN GAO
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, New York, USA (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
PAUL FODOR
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, New York, USA (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
MICHAEL KIFER
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, New York, USA (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Word puzzles and the problem of their representations in logic languages have received considerable attention in the last decade (Ponnuru et al. 2004; Shapiro 2011; Baral and Dzifcak 2012; Schwitter 2013). Of special interest is the problem of generating such representations directly from natural language (NL) or controlled natural language (CNL). An interesting variation of this problem, and to the best of our knowledge, scarcely explored variation in this context, is when the input information is inconsistent. In such situations, the existing encodings of word puzzles produce inconsistent representations and break down. In this paper, we bring the well-known type of paraconsistent logics, called Annotated Predicate Calculus (APC) (Kifer and Lozinskii 1992), to bear on the problem. We introduce a new kind of non-monotonic semantics for APC, called consistency preferred stable models and argue that it makes APC into a suitable platform for dealing with inconsistency in word puzzles and, more generally, in NL sentences. We also devise a number of general principles to help the user choose among the different representations of NL sentences, which might seem equivalent but, in fact, behave differently when inconsistent information is taken into account. These principles can be incorporated into existing CNL translators, such as Attempto Controlled English (ACE) (Fuchs et al. 2008) and PENG Light (White and Schwitter 2009). Finally, we show that APC with the consistency preferred stable model semantics can be equivalently embedded in ASP with preferences over stable models, and we use this embedding to implement this version of APC in Clingo (Gebser et al. 2011) and its Asprin add-on (Brewka et al. 2015).

Keywords

ParaconsistencyWord PuzzlesAnnotated Predicate CalculusControlled Natural Language
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 16 , Special Issue 5-6: 32nd International Conference on Logic Programming , September 2016 , pp. 703 - 720
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baral, C. and Dzifcak, J. 2012. Solving puzzles described in English by automated translation to answer set programming and learning how to do that translation. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference, KR 2012, Rome, Italy, June 10-14, 2012. AAAI Press, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Belnap, N. D. Jr 1977. A useful four-valued logic. In Modern uses of multiple-valued logic. Springer, Volume 2, 5–37.Google Scholar
Blair, H. and Subrahmanian, V. 1989. Paraconsistent logic programming. Theoretical Computer Science 68, 135–154.Google Scholar
Brewka, G., Delgrande, J. P., Romero, J. and Schaub, T. 2015. asprin: Customizing answer set preferences without a headache. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, January 25-30, 2015, Austin, Texas, USA. AAAI Press, Austin, Texas, 1467–1474.Google Scholar
C. Guéret, C. P. and Sevaux, M. 2000. Programmation linéaire - 65 problèmes d'optimisation modélisés et résolus avec Visual Xpress. Eyrolles, France. ISBN: 2-212-09202-4.Google Scholar
da Costa, N. 1974. On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame J. of Formal Logic 15, 4 (October), 497–510.Google Scholar
Finkel, R. A., Marek, V. W. and Truszczynski, M. 2004. Constraint lingo: towards high-level constraint programming. Softw., Pract. Exper. 34, 15, 1481–1504.Google Scholar
Fuchs, N. E., Kaljurand, K. and Kuhn, T. 2008. Attempto controlled English for knowledge representation. In Reasoning Web, 4th International Summer School 2008, Venice, Italy, September 7-11, 2008, Tutorial Lectures, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5224. Springer, Venice, Italy, 104–124.Google Scholar
Gao, T., Fodor, P. and Kifer, M. 2016. Paraconsistency and Word Puzzles. ArXiv e-prints http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.01338, 1–30.Google Scholar
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T. and Schneider, M. 2011. Potassco: The Potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Communications 24, 2, 107–124.Google Scholar
Beziau, J. Y., Carnielli, W., D. M. G. 2007. Handbook of Paraconsistency (Studies in Logic). College Publications, United States.Google Scholar
Kifer, M. and Lozinskii, E. L. 1992. A logic for reasoning with inconsistency. J. Autom. Reasoning 9, 2, 179–215.Google Scholar
Kifer, M. and Subrahmanian, V. S. 1992. Theory of generalized annotated logic programming and its applications. J. Log. Program. 12, 3&4, 335–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponnuru, H., Finkel, R. A., Marek, V. W. and Truszczynski, M. 2004. Automatic generation of English-language steps in puzzle solving. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IC-AI '04, June 21-24, 2004, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, Volume 1. CSREA Press, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 437–442.Google Scholar
Priest, G., Tanaka, K. and Weber, Z. 2015. Paraconsistent logic. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2015 ed., Zalta, E. N., Ed. Stanford, USA.Google Scholar
Schwitter, R. 2013. The Jobs Puzzle: Taking on the challenge via controlled natural language processing. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 13, 4–5, 487–501.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. C. 2000. An introduction to sneps 3. In Conceptual Structures: Logical, Linguistic, and Computational Issues, 8th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2000, Darmstadt, Germany, August 14-18, 2000, Proceedings. Springer, Darmstadt, Germany, 510–524.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. C. 2011. The jobs puzzle: A challenge for logical expressibility and automated reasoning. In Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, Papers from the 2011 AAAI Spring Symposium, California, USA, March 21-23, 2011. AAAI, Stanford, California, USA.Google Scholar
Soininen, T., Niemelä, I., Tiihonen, J. and Sulonen, R. 2001. Representing configuration knowledge with weight constraint rules. In Answer Set Programming, Towards Efficient and Scalable Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Proceedings of the 1st Intl. ASP'01 Workshop, Stanford, March 26-28, 2001. Springer, Stanford, California, USA.Google Scholar
Syrjänen, T. and Niemelä, I. 2001. The Smodels system. In Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, 6th International Conference, LPNMR 2001, Vienna, Austria, September 17-19, 2001, Proceedings. Springer, Vienna, Austria, 434–438.Google Scholar
White, C. and Schwitter, R. 2009. An update on PENG Light. In Proceedings of ALTA. Vol. 7. Springer, Sydney, Australia, 80–88.Google Scholar
Wos, L., Overbeck, R., Lusk, E. and Boyle, J. 1984. Automated reasoning: Introduction and applications. Prentice Hall Inc., Old Tappan, NJ, United States.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Gao supplementary material

Appendix

Download Gao supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 158.8 KB