Syntax, Preference and Right Attachment Yorick Wilks, Xiuming Huang & Dan Fass Computing Research Laboratory New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM, USA 88003 ABSTRACT The paper claims that the right attachment rules for phrases originally suggested by Frazier and Fodor are wrong, and that none of the subsequent patchings of the rules by syntactic methods have improved the situation. For each rule there are perfectly straightforward and indefinitely large classes of simple counterexamples. We then examine suggestions by Ford et a!., Schubert and Hirst which are quasi-semantic in nature and which we consider ingenious but unsatisfactory. We offer a straightforward solution within the framework of preference semantics, and argue that the principal issue is not the type and nature of information required to get appropriate phrase attachments, but the issue of where to store the information and with what processes to apply it. We present a prolog implementation of a best first algorithm covering the data and contrast it with closely related ones, all of which are based on the preferences of nouns and prepositions, as well as verbs.

The program has two modes: PARAPHRASE and INFERENCE. In PARAPHRASE mode up to 150 semantic paraphrases can be generated from an input sentence by reading the conceptual representation underlying that sentence using different words and concept combinatione.

Publication 29, Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm.

New York: Academic Press

The cerebellum provides precise coordination of motor control for such body parts as the eyes, arms, fingers, legs, and wings. It stores and retrieves information required to control thousands of muscles in producing coordinated behavior as a function of time. CMAC was designed to provide this kind of motor control for robotic manipulators. CMAC is a kind of memory, or table look-up mechanism, that is capable of learning motor behavior. It exhibits properties such as generalization, learning interference, discrimination, and forgetting that are characteristic of motor learning in biological creatures.

After examining the simplest statements thaï can be based on a verb, a noun and an adjective, we go on to more complex statements involving articles, relative clauses and négations. Emphasis is laid on the systematic transformation ofa sentence into a semantic formula, h appears that such semantic formulae can be interpre ted correctly only in a logical system wit h three truth-values. Moreover one must suppose that the elementary relations associâted wit h the verb s, nouns and adjective s range not on individuals, but on sets of individuals.

Reprinted in Readings in Uncertain Reasoning, G. Shafer and J. Pearl, eds., pp. 259-273, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1990.See also: Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research (BMIR).… quantifying confirmation and then manipulating the numbers as though they were probabilities quickly leads to apparent inconsistencies or paradoxes. Carl Hempel presented an early analysis of confirmation (Hempel, 1965), pointing out as we have that C[h,e] is a very different concept from P(hle ). His famous Paradox of the Ravens was presented early in his discussion of the logic of confirmation. Let hl be the statement that "all ravens are black" and h2 the statement that "all nonblack things are nonravens." Clearly hi is logically equivalent to h,2. If one were to draw an analogy with conditional probability, it might at first seem valid, therefore, to assert that C[hl,e] = C[h2,e] for all e. However, it appears counterintuitive to state that the observation of a green vase supports hi, even though the observation does seem to support h,2. C[h,e] is therefore different from P(hle) for it seems somehow wrong that an observation of a vase could logically support an assertion about ravens. Another characteristic of a quantitative approach to confirmation that distinguishes the concept from probability was well-recognized by Carnap (1950) and discussed by Barker (1957) and Harrd (1970). They note it is counterintuitive to suggest that the confirmation of the negation of a hypothesis is equal to one minus the confirmation of the hypothesis, i.e., C[h,e] is not 1 - C[-qh,e]. The streptococcal decision rule asserted that a gram-positive coccus growing in chains is a Streptococcus with a measure of support specified as 7 out of 10. This translates to C[h,e]=0.7 where h is "the organism is a Streptococcus" and e is the information that "the organism is a gram-positive coccus growing in chains." As discussed above, an expert does not necessarily believe that C[mh,e] = 0.3. The evidence is said to be supportive of the contention that the organism is a Streptococcus and can therefore hardly also support the contention that the organism is not a Streptococcus. Ch.13 of Mycin Book; revised from Math. Biosci. 23:351-379

New York: Academic Press

Research in computer chess has been active for over three decades. Over that period, computer chess has fallen from the position of being a prominent research application in artificial intelligence to a peripheral area. In this paper, we take a retrospective look at what has been accomplished, in order to understand where the field is today and where it is headed tomorrow. Whereas the past has often been clouded by engineering passing as science, misspent effort for short-term gains, and research results with little applicability to other domains, there is evidence that computer chess is emerging from the shadow of its past and may now be recapturing some of its lost stature in the research world.

John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Robinson, J.A. (1965) "A Machine Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle".