Evaluating Scoped Meaning Representations

Semantic parsing offers many opportunities to improve natural language understanding. We present a semantically annotated parallel corpus for English, German, Italian, and Dutch where sentences are aligned with scoped meaning representations in order to capture the semantics of negation, modals, quantification, and presupposition triggers. The semantic formalism is based on Discourse Representation Theory, but concepts are represented by WordNet synsets and thematic roles by VerbNet relations. Translating scoped meaning representations to sets of clauses enables us to compare them for the purpose of semantic parser evaluation and checking translations. This is done by computing precision and recall on matching clauses, in a similar way as is done for Abstract Meaning Representations. We show that our matching tool for evaluating scoped meaning representations is both accurate and efficient. Applying this matching tool to three baseline semantic parsers yields F-scores between 43% and 54%. A pilot study is performed to automatically find changes in meaning by comparing meaning representations of translations. This comparison turns out to be an additional way of (i) finding annotation mistakes and (ii) finding instances where our semantic analysis needs to be improved.Comment: Camera-ready for LREC 201

The Parallel Meaning Bank: Towards a Multilingual Corpus of Translations Annotated with Compositional Meaning Representations

The Parallel Meaning Bank is a corpus of translations annotated with shared, formal meaning representations comprising over 11 million words divided over four languages (English, German, Italian, and Dutch). Our approach is based on cross-lingual projection: automatically produced (and manually corrected) semantic annotations for English sentences are mapped onto their word-aligned translations, assuming that the translations are meaning-preserving. The semantic annotation consists of five main steps: (i) segmentation of the text in sentences and lexical items; (ii) syntactic parsing with Combinatory Categorial Grammar; (iii) universal semantic tagging; (iv) symbolization; and (v) compositional semantic analysis based on Discourse Representation Theory. These steps are performed using statistical models trained in a semi-supervised manner. The employed annotation models are all language-neutral. Our first results are promising.Comment: To appear at EACL 201

Defeasible Reasoning in SROEL: from Rational Entailment to Rational Closure

In this work we study a rational extension $SROEL^R T$ of the low complexity description logic SROEL, which underlies the OWL EL ontology language. The extension involves a typicality operator T, whose semantics is based on Lehmann and Magidor's ranked models and allows for the definition of defeasible inclusions. We consider both rational entailment and minimal entailment. We show that deciding instance checking under minimal entailment is in general $\Pi^P_2$-hard, while, under rational entailment, instance checking can be computed in polynomial time. We develop a Datalog calculus for instance checking under rational entailment and exploit it, with stratified negation, for computing the rational closure of simple KBs in polynomial time.Comment: Accepted for publication on Fundamenta Informatica

Reasoning about exceptions in ontologies: from the lexicographic closure to the skeptical closure

Reasoning about exceptions in ontologies is nowadays one of the challenges the description logics community is facing. The paper describes a preferential approach for dealing with exceptions in Description Logics, based on the rational closure. The rational closure has the merit of providing a simple and efficient approach for reasoning with exceptions, but it does not allow independent handling of the inheritance of different defeasible properties of concepts. In this work we outline a possible solution to this problem by introducing a variant of the lexicographical closure, that we call skeptical closure, which requires to construct a single base. We develop a bi-preference semantics semantics for defining a characterization of the skeptical closure