An ASP Based Approach to Answering Questions for Natural Language Text

  • Dhruva PendharkarEmail author
  • Gopal GuptaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11372)


An approach based on answer set programming (ASP) is proposed in this paper for representing knowledge generated from natural language text. Knowledge in the text is modeled using a Neo Davidsonian-like formalism, represented as an answer set program. Relevant common sense knowledge is additionally imported from resources such as WordNet and represented in ASP. The resulting knowledge-base can then be used to perform reasoning with the help of an ASP system. This approach can facilitate many natural language tasks such as automated question answering, text summarization, and automated question generation. ASP-based representation of techniques such as default reasoning, hierarchical knowledge organization, preferences over defaults, etc., are used to model common-sense reasoning methods required to accomplish these tasks. In this paper we describe the CASPR system that we have developed to automate the task of answering natural language questions given English text. CASPR can be regarded as a system that answers questions by “understanding” the text and has been tested on the SQuAD data set, with promising results.


ASP Common sense reasoning NLP KR 



Authors thank NSF (Grant IIS 1718945) and members of their research group (Zhuo Chen, Farhad Shakerin, Elmer Salazar, Joaquin Arias, Sarat Varanasi, Kyle Marple).


  1. 1.
    Alviano, M., Faber, W., Leone, N., Perri, S., Pfeifer, G., Terracina, G.: The disjunctive datalog system DLV. In: de Moor, O., Gottlob, G., Furche, T., Sellers, A. (eds.) Datalog 2.0 2010. LNCS, vol. 6702, pp. 282–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arias, J., Carro, M., Salazar, E., Marple, K., Gupta, G.: Constraint answer set programming without grounding. TPLP 18(3–4), 337–354 (2018)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge university press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baral, C., Schüller, P. (eds.): Proceedings of 1st Workshop on NLP and Automated Reasoning 2013, vol. 1044 (2013).
  5. 5.
    Chen, D., Manning, C.: A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. In: Proceedings of 2014 EMNLP, pp. 740–750 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, Z., Marple, K., Salazar, E., Gupta, G., Tamil, L.: A physician advisory system for CHF based on knowledge patterns. TPLP 16(5–6), 604–618 (2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davidson, D.: Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford University Press, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Marneffe, M.C., Dozat, T., et al.: Universal Stanford dependencies: a cross-linguistic typology. In: LREC, vol. 14, pp. 4585–4592 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Marneffe, M.C., Manning, C.D.: Stanford typed dependencies manual. Technical report, Stanford University (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finkel, J.R., et al.: Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by Gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of 43rd ACL, pp. 363–370 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Thiele, S.: Gringo, Clasp, Clingo, and Iclingo User Guide (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gelfond, M., Kahl, Y.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents: The ASP Approach. Cambridge University Press, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jonson-Laird, P.: How We Reason. Oxford University Press, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kipper, K., et al.: Extending verbnet with novel verb classes. In: Proceedings of LREC 2006, Genoa, Italy, pp. 1027–1032 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mahdisoltani, F., et al.: YAGO3: A knowledge base from multilingual Wikipedias. In: Proceedings of CIDR (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marple, K., Salazar, E., Gupta, G.: Computing stable models of normal logic programs without grounding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.00501 (2017)
  17. 17.
    Miller, G.A.: Wordnet: a Lexical database for English. Commun. ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mitchell, T.M., et al.: Never-ending language learning. In: Proceedings of Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 2302–2310 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pendharkar, D.: An ASP-based Approach to Representing and Querying Textual Knowledge. M.S. Thesis, UT Dallas.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Rajpurkar, P., et al.: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05250 (2016)
  22. 22.
    Toutanova, K., et al.: Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In: Proceedings of 2003 NAACL, pp. 173–180 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Toutanova, K., Manning, C.D.: Enriching the knowledge sources used in a maximum entropy part-of-speech tagger. In: Proceedings of EMNLP 2000, pp. 63–70 (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vo, N.H., Mitra, A., Baral, C.: The NL2KR platform for building natural language translation systems. In: Proceedings of ACL 2015, pp. 899–908 (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wikipedia contributors: Cyc – Wikipedia. Accessed 17 May 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA

Personalised recommendations