Concept Molecules and NMR

In the article Two types of coding 1, I described the challenge of getting computers to ‘understand’ the incredibly diverse range of medical diagnoses that may crop up in a text. To meet this challenge, the computer has to convert the various diagnostic formulations encountered into a consistent format that represents all the semantic details in an easily retrievable form.

With concept molecules we have succeeded in doing this. We were aided here by two properties of the concept molecules method:
a) the consistently composite representation of semantics, and
b) a non-monotonic reasoner.
At the time, the use of a non-monotonic reasoner was very much out of vogue. Most research groups in the field of medical computational linguistics were in the process of switching from First Order Logic (FOL) to Description Logic (DL), believing that DL is the best way to get computers to interpret complex semantics. As it turned out, however, it was us – a small private research company without state support – that was successful. Instead of the accepted doctrine of FOL and DL based upon a monotonic approach, we used a non-monotonic method.

What is monotonic logic?

In logic, monotony means that the truth of statements does not change even if new contradictory information subsequently crops up. Thus, what has been recognised within the system as true remains true, and what has been recognised as false remains false. Under non-monotony, on the other hand, conclusions drawn by the system can be called into question on the basis of additional information.

So, what’s the problem with non-monotony?

It is clear that proof is only possible in a monotonic system. In a non-monotonic system, on the other hand, there is always the possibility of another argument cropping up that leads to completely different conclusions. Since proof is essential in mathematics, it is obvious that mathematical logic relies on monotony.

Computational linguistics, however, is not about proof, but about the correct assignment of words to concepts. Thus, the advantage of being able to supply proof – as important as it clearly is for mathematics – is irrelevant to our task.

And the problem with monotony?

A system that cannot change its conclusions is not able to learn in any real sense. The human brain, for example, is in no way monotonic.

Moreover, a monotonic system must also be closed, whereas in practice scientific ontologies are not closed, but grow as knowledge progresses. Progress of this kind is also evident in the development of an interpretation program with its complex algorithms:  here, too, there is continuous improvement and expansion that poses problems for monotonic systems.

In addition, monotonic systems are not particularly efficient when it comes to dealing with exceptions. It is well known that there are exceptions to every rule, and a non-monotonic system can handle these in a much more effective and straightforward way.

Non-monotony in practice

If we compare rules-based systems, I believe that non-monotonic systems are clearly preferable to monotonic ones for our purposes. Non-monotony is by no means the easy option and has a few pitfalls and knotty issues of its own, but the ease with which even detailed and complex fields can be modelled decides the issue in its favour.