Skip to main content

On the Differences Between Human Agents and Logic-Based Software Agents Discourse Understanding

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Mining Intelligence and Knowledge Exploration (MIKE 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11987))

Abstract

We are interested in the differences between how a human agent and a logic-based software agent interpret a text in natural language. When reading a narrative, the human agent has a single interpretation model. That is the preferred model among the models consistent with the available information. The model is gradually adjusted as the story proceeds. Differently, a logic-based software agent works with a finite set of many models, in the same time. Of most interest is that the number of these models is huge, even for simple narratives. We compare here the reduction strategies of humans and software agents to keep the discourse more intelligible and tractable. One the one hand, the human agent extensively uses common knowledge, contextual reasoning and closes the world as much as possible. On the other hand, the logical agent adds domain knowledge (such as ontologies) and applied reduction strategies (such as identifying isomorphisms). The differences are analyse with puzzles in First order logic, Description logic and Dynamic epistemic logic.

This research is part-funded by the ExNanoMat-21PFE grant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    We assume the reader is familiar with the Description Logic syntax. Otherwise, the reader is referred to [1].

  2. 2.

    For one implementation of this puzzle, the interested reader is referred to SMCDEL symbolic model checker for Dynamic Epistemic Logic (https://github.com/jrclogic/SMCDEL) [2].

  3. 3.

    http://wit.istc.cnr.it/stlab-tools/fred/demo/.

  4. 4.

    http://www.nltk.org/howto/inference.html.

References

  1. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P., Nardi, D.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., Gattinger, M., Su, K.: Symbolic model checking for dynamic epistemic logic—S5 and beyond. J. Logic Comput. 28(2), 367–402 (2017)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. De Bono, E., Zimbalist, E.: Lateral thinking. Viking (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gangemi, A., Presutti, V., Recupero, D.R., Nuzzolese, A.G., Draicchio, F., Mongiovì, M.: Semantic web machine reading with FRED. Semant. Web 8(6), 873–893 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Garrette, D., Klein, E.: An extensible toolkit for computational semantics. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Semantics, pp. 116–127. Association for Computational Linguistics (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Haarslev, V., Hidde, K., Möller, R., Wessel, M.: The RacerPro knowledge representation and reasoning system. Semant. Web 3(3), 267–277 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Herman, D.: Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kamp, H., Reyle, U.: From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory, vol. 42. Springer, Dordrecht (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Letia, I.A., Groza, A.: Modelling imprecise arguments in description logic. Adv. Electr. Comput. Eng. 9(3), 94–99 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McCune, W.: Mace4 reference manual and guide. arXiv preprint cs/0310055 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mueller, E.T.: Commonsense Reasoning: An Event Calculus Based Approach. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Van Ditmarsch, H., van Der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic, vol. 337. Springer, Dordrecht (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5839-4

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Groza .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Groza, A. (2020). On the Differences Between Human Agents and Logic-Based Software Agents Discourse Understanding. In: B. R., P., Thenkanidiyoor, V., Prasath, R., Vanga, O. (eds) Mining Intelligence and Knowledge Exploration. MIKE 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11987. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66187-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66187-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66186-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66187-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics