# The Inverse Lambda Calculus Algorithm for Typed First Order Logic Lambda Calculus and Its Application to Translating English to FOL

• Chitta Baral
• Marcos Alvarez Gonzalez
• Aaron Gottesman
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7265)

## Abstract

In order to answer questions and solve problems that require deeper reasoning with respect to a given text, it is necessary to automatically translate English sentences to formulas in an appropriate knowledge representation language. This paper focuses on a method to translate sentences to First-Order Logic (FOL). Our approach is inspired by Montague’s use of lambda calculus formulas to represent the meanings of words and phrases. Since our target language is FOL, the meanings of words and phrases are represented as FOL-lambda formulas. In this paper we present algorithms that allow one to construct FOL-lambda formulas in an inverse manner. Given a sentence and its meaning and knowing the meaning of several words in the sentence our algorithm can be used to obtain the meaning of the other words in that sentence. In particular the two algorithms take as input two FOL-lambda formulas G and H and compute a FOL-lambda formula F such that F with input G, denoted by F@G, is H; respectively, G@F = H. We then illustrate our algorithm and present soundness, completeness and complexity results, and briefly mention the use of our algorithm in a NL Semantics system that translates sentences from English to formulas in formal languages.

## Keywords

Semantic Representation Versus Incent Natural Language Semantic Lambda Calculus Knowledge Representation Language
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## References

1. 1.
Gamut, L.T.F.: Logic, Language, and Meaning. The University of Chicago Press (1991)Google Scholar
2. 2.
Blackburn, P., Bos, J.: Representation and Inference for Natural Language: A First Course in Computational Semantics. Center for the Study of Language (2005)Google Scholar
3. 3.
Zettlemoyer, L.S., Collins, M.: Online learning of relaxed ccg grammars for parsing to logical form. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 678–687 (2007)Google Scholar
4. 4.
Baral, C., Dzifcak, J., Son, T.C.: Using answer set programming and lambda calculus to characterize natural language sentences with normatives and exceptions. In: AAAI 2008: Proceedings of the 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 818–823 (2008)Google Scholar
5. 5.
Dzifcak, J., Scheutz, M., Baral, C., Schermerhorn, P.: What to do and how to do it: translating natural language directives into temporal and dynamic logic representation for goal management and action execution. In: Robotics and Automation, ICRA 2009, pp. 4163–4168 (2009)Google Scholar
6. 6.
Clark, S., Curran, J.R.: Wide-coverage efficient statistical parsing with ccg and log-linear models. Computational Linguistics 33 (2007)Google Scholar
7. 7.
Zettlemoyer, L.S., Collins, M.: Learning to map sentences to logical form: Structured classification with probabilistic categorial grammars. In: 21th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 658–666 (2005)Google Scholar
8. 8.
Steedman, M.: The syntactic process. MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
9. 9.
Baral, C., Dzifcak, J., Gonzalez, M.A., Zhou, J.: Using inverse lambda and generalization to translate english to formal languages. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computational Semantics, ICWS 2011 (2011) (to appear)Google Scholar
10. 10.
Montague, R.: Formal Philosophy. In: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New Haven (1974)Google Scholar
11. 11.
Barendregt, H.: Lambda Calculi with Types, Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, vol. II. Oxford University Press (1992)Google Scholar
12. 12.
Hindley, J.: Introduction to Combinators and Lambda-Calculus. Cambridge University Press (1986)Google Scholar
13. 13.
Hindley, J.: Basic Simple Type Theory. Cambridge University Press (1997)Google Scholar
14. 14.
Barbara, H., Partee, A.T.M., Wall, R.E.: Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1990)Google Scholar
15. 15.
Stirling, C.: Decidability of higher-order matching. To appear Logical Methods in Computer Science 5(3) (2009)Google Scholar
16. 16.
Dowek, G.: Third order matching is decidable. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 69(2-3), 135–155 (1994)
17. 17.
Loader, R.: Higher-order beta-matching is undecidable. Logic Journal of IGPL 11(1), 51–68 (2003)
18. 18.
Kanazawa, M.: Learning word-to-meaning mappings in logical semantics. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 126–131 (2001)Google Scholar
19. 19.
Kanazawa, M.: Computing word meanings by interpolation. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 157–162 (2003)Google Scholar
20. 20.
Huet, G.: The undecidability of unication in third order logic. Information and Control 22(3), 257–267 (1973)
21. 21.
Huet, G.: A unication algorithm for typed calculus. Theoretical Computer Science 1, 27–57 (1975)
22. 22.
Kwiatkowski, T., Zettlemoyer, L., Goldwater, S., Steedman, M.: Inducing probabilistic ccg grammars from logical form with higher-order unification. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP (2010)Google Scholar

## Authors and Affiliations

• Chitta Baral
• 1
• Marcos Alvarez Gonzalez
• 1
• Aaron Gottesman
• 1
1. 1.School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA