Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T06:11:29.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Application of ASP Theories of Intentions to Understanding Restaurant Scenarios: Insights and Narrative Corpus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2019

QINGLIN ZHANG ,
CHRIS BENTON  and
DANIELA INCLEZAN
QINGLIN ZHANG
Affiliation:
Miami University, College of Engineering & Computing, Oxford, OH 45056, USA (e-mails: zhangq7@miamioh.edu, bentoncl@miamioh.edu, inclezd@miamioh.edu)
CHRIS BENTON
Affiliation:
Miami University, College of Engineering & Computing, Oxford, OH 45056, USA (e-mails: zhangq7@miamioh.edu, bentoncl@miamioh.edu, inclezd@miamioh.edu)
DANIELA INCLEZAN*
Affiliation:
Miami University, College of Engineering & Computing, Oxford, OH 45056, USA (e-mails: zhangq7@miamioh.edu, bentoncl@miamioh.edu, inclezd@miamioh.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a practical application of Answer Set Programming to the understanding of narratives about restaurants. While this task was investigated in depth by Erik Mueller, exceptional scenarios remained a serious challenge for his script-based story comprehension system. We present a methodology that remedies this issue by modeling characters in a restaurant episode as intentional agents. We focus especially on the refinement of certain components of this methodology in order to increase coverage and performance. We present a restaurant story corpus that we created to design and evaluate our methodology.

Keywords

Answer Set Programmingnatural language understandingintentional agents
Type
Technical Note
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , March 2020 , pp. 273 - 293
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank Zengzhi Jiang, Keya Patel, and Marcello Balduccini for their help in retrieving excerpts from Google Books and Project Gutenberg.

References

Balduccini, M. 2007. CR-MODELS: An inference engine for CR-Prolog. In Proceedings of LPNMR 2007, Baral, C., Brewka, G., and Schlipf, J. S., Eds. LNCS, vol. 4483. Springer, 18–30.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. and Gelfond, M. 2003. Logic programs with consistency-restoring rules. In Proceedings of Commonsense-03. AAAI Press, 9–18.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. and Gelfond, M. 2008. The AAA architecture: An overview. In Architectures for Intelligent Theory-Based Agents, Papers from the 2008 AAAI Spring Symposium, 2008. AAAI Press, 1–6.Google Scholar
Baral, C. and Gelfond, M. 2000. Reasoning Agents in Dynamic Domains. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 257–279.Google Scholar
Baral, C. and Gelfond, M. 2005. Reasoning about intended actions. In Proceedings of AAAI-05, AAAI Press, 689–694.Google Scholar
Barr, A. and Feigenbaum, E. 1981. The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. vol. 1. William Kaufman Inc., Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
Bertelsen, O. W. and Bødker, S. 2003. Activity theory. In HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 291–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blount, J. 2013. An Architecture for Intentional Agents. Ph.D. thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.Google Scholar
Blount, J., Gelfond, M. and Balduccini, M. 2015. A theory of intentions for intelligent agents. In Proceedings of LPNMR 2015, Calimeri, F., Ianni, G., and Truszczynski, M., Eds. LNCS, vol. 9345. Springer, 134–142.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 1987. Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Chambers, N. and Jurafsky, D. 2008. Unsupervised learning of narrative event chains. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT. 789–797.Google Scholar
Craik, K. J. W. 1943. The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Gabaldon, A. 2009. Activity recognition with intended actions. In Proceedings of IJCAI 2009, Boutilier, C., Ed. 1696–1701.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Kahl, Y. 2014. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, A. S., Cao, Q. and Swanson, R. 2007. Automated story capture from internet weblogs. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Knowledge Capture. K-CAP ’07. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 167–168.Google Scholar
Gupta, R. and Kochenderfer, M. J. 2004. Common sense data acquisition for indoor mobile robots. In Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI’04. AAAI Press, 605–610.Google Scholar
Hoos, H. H., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T. and Schneider, M. 2013. Robust benchmark set selection for Boolean constraint solvers. In 7th International Conference on Learning and Intelligent Optimization (LION-13) – Revised Selected Papers. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA, 138–152.Google Scholar
Inclezan, D. and Gelfond, M. 2011. Representing biological processes in modular action language ALM. In Proceedings of Commonsense 2011, 49–55.Google Scholar
Inclezan, D., Zhang, Q., Balduccini, M. and Israney, A. 2017. Understanding restaurant stories using an ASP theory of intentions (extended abstract). In Technical Communications of the 33rd International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP-TC 2017). OASIcs.Google Scholar
Inclezan, D., Zhang, Q., Balduccini, M. and Israney, A. 2018. An ASP methodology for understanding narratives about stereotypical activities. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 18, 3–4, 535–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, R. and Nugues, P. 2007a. Language Technology at LTH. http://nlp.cs.lth.se/ [Accessed March 15, 2019].Google Scholar
Johansson, R. and Nugues, P. 2007b. LTH: Semantic structure extraction using nonprojective dependency trees. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007). Association for Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, 227–230.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1983. Mental Models: Toward a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S. J. and McClosky, D. 2014. Stanford CoreNLP a suite of core NLP tools. http://stanfordnlp.github.io/CoreNLP/ [Accessed on March 15, 2019].Google Scholar
Manshadi, M., Swanson, R. and Gordon, A. S. 2008. Learning a Probabilistic Model of Event Sequences from Internet Weblog Stories. In 21st Conference of the Florida AI Society (FLAIRS), Applied Natural Language Processing Track. Coconut Grove, FL.Google Scholar
Modi, A., Anikina, T., Ostermann, S. and Pinkal, M. 2017. Narrative texts annotated with script information. In Proceedings of the Tenth Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. European Language Resources Association, 3485–3493. CoRRabs/1703.05260 [Accessed on March 15, 2019].Google Scholar
Mueller, E. T. 2004. Understanding script-based stories using commonsense reasoning. Cognitive Systems Research 5, 4, 307–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, E. T. 2007. Modelling space and time in narratives about restaurants. Literary and Linguistic Computing 22, 1, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, H. T. andMooney, R. J. 1992. Abductive plan recognition and diagnosis: A comprehensive empirical evaluation. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’92), October 25–29, 1992, Cambridge, MA, 499–508.Google Scholar
Regneri, M., Koller, A. and Pinkal, M. 2010. Learning script knowledge with web experiments. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL ’10. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 979–988.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. 1997. Solving the Frame Problem. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Singh, P., Lin, T., Mueller, E. T., Lim, G., Perkins, T. and Zhu, W. L. 2002. Open mind common sense: Knowledge acquisition from the general public. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, 2002 – DOA/CoopIS/ODBASE 2002. Springer-Verlag, London, UK, 1223–1237.Google Scholar
Smith, D. and Arnold, K. C. 2009. Learning hierarchical plans by reading simple English narratives. In Proceedings of the Commonsense Workshop at IUI-09.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. and Kintsch, W. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q. and Inclezan, D. 2017. An application of ASP theories of intentions to understanding restaurant scenarios. In Proceedings of PAoASP’17.Google Scholar