A Logic-based Approach for Recognizing Textual Entailment Supported by Ontological Background Knowledge

We present the architecture and the evaluation of a new system for recognizing textual entailment (RTE). In RTE we want to identify automatically the type of a logical relation between two input texts. In particular, we are interested in proving the existence of an entailment between them. We conceive our system as a modular environment allowing for a high-coverage syntactic and semantic text analysis combined with logical inference. For the syntactic and semantic analysis we combine a deep semantic analysis with a shallow one supported by statistical models in order to increase the quality and the accuracy of results. For RTE we use logical inference of first-order employing model-theoretic techniques and automated reasoning tools. The inference is supported with problem-relevant background knowledge extracted automatically and on demand from external sources like, e.g., WordNet, YAGO, and OpenCyc, or other, more experimental sources with, e.g., manually defined presupposition resolutions, or with axiomatized general and common sense knowledge. The results show that fine-grained and consistent knowledge coming from diverse sources is a necessary condition determining the correctness and traceability of results.Comment: 25 pages, 10 figure

Defining Textual Entailment

Textual entailment is a relationship that obtains between fragments of text when one fragment in some sense implies the other fragment. The automation of textual entailment recognition supports a wide variety of text-based tasks, including information retrieval, information extraction, question answering, text summarization, and machine translation. Much ingenuity has been devoted to developing algorithms for identifying textual entailments, but relatively little to saying what textual entailment actually is. This article is a review of the logical and philosophical issues involved in providing an adequate definition of textual entailment. We show that many natural definitions of textual entailment are refuted by counterexamples, including the most widely cited definition of Dagan et al. We then articulate and defend the following revised definition: T textually entails H = df typically, a human reading T would be justified in inferring the proposition expressed by H from the proposition expressed by T. We also show that textual entailment is context-sensitive, nontransitive, and nonmonotonic

A Survey of Paraphrasing and Textual Entailment Methods

Paraphrasing methods recognize, generate, or extract phrases, sentences, or longer natural language expressions that convey almost the same information. Textual entailment methods, on the other hand, recognize, generate, or extract pairs of natural language expressions, such that a human who reads (and trusts) the first element of a pair would most likely infer that the other element is also true. Paraphrasing can be seen as bidirectional textual entailment and methods from the two areas are often similar. Both kinds of methods are useful, at least in principle, in a wide range of natural language processing applications, including question answering, summarization, text generation, and machine translation. We summarize key ideas from the two areas by considering in turn recognition, generation, and extraction methods, also pointing to prominent articles and resources.Comment: Technical Report, Natural Language Processing Group, Department of Informatics, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece, 201