To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The paper investigates the computational complexity of different versions of Optimality Theory (OT). The result of Frank and Satta (1998) is used as a starting point. These authors show that unidirectional optimization can be implemented by finite state techniques if only binary constraints are used. The consequences of (a) taking gradient constraints into account and (b) using bidirectional optimization in the sense of Blutner (2000) are explored. The central result of the paper is that the combination of gradient constraints and bidirectionality leads to a massive increase of computational complexity.
This paper presents the design and implementation of a finite-state syntactic grammar of Basque that has been used with the objective of extracting information about verb subcategorization instances from newspaper texts. After a partial parser has built basic syntactic units such as noun phrases, prepositional phrases, and sentential complements, a finite-state parser performs syntactic disambiguation, determination of clause boundaries and filtering of the results, in order to obtain a verb occurrence together with its associated syntactic components, either complements or adjuncts. The set of occurrences for each verb is then filtered by statistical measures that distinguish arguments from adjuncts.
This paper presents a scheme that allows one to relax the all-or-none nature of two-level constraints in two-level morphology in a controlled manner, so that word forms with violations of some of the two-level constraints can be analyzed and ranked. The problem has been motivated by a recent phenomenon in Turkish with imported words that violate a fundamental assumption of Turkish that pronunciation and orthography have almost a one-to-one correspondence, and by a problem in Basque words with differing amounts of competence errors. We present the formulation of our proposal, and provide details of implementations for both problems using the XRCE Finite State Toolkit.
Hyphenation is the task of identifying potential hyphenation points inwords. In this paper, three finite-state hyphenation methods for Dutch are presented and compared in terms of accuracy and size of the resulting automata.
In this paper, we present a new Deterministic Finite Automata (DFA) minimization algorithm. The algorithm is incremental – it may be halted at any time, yielding a partially-minimized automaton. All of the other (known) minimization algorithms have intermediate results which are not useable for partial minimization. Since the first algorithm is easily understood but inefficient, we consider three practical and effective optimizations. The first two optimizations do not affect the asymptotic worst-case running time – though they perform well on a large class of automata. The third optimization yields an quadratic-time algorithm which is competitive with the previously known ones.
Classifier combination is an effective and broadly useful method of improving system performance. This article investigates in depth a large number of both well-established and novel classifier combination approaches for the word sense disambiguation task, studied over a diverse classifier pool which includes feature-enhanced Naïve Bayes, Cosine, Decision List, Transformation-based Learning and MMVC classifiers. Each classifier has access to the same rich feature space, comprised of distance weighted bag-of-lemmas, local ngram context and specific syntactic relations, such as Verb-Object and Noun-Modifier. This study examines several key issues in system combination for the word sense disambiguation task, ranging from algorithmic structure to parameter estimation. Experiments using the standard SENSEVAL2 lexical-sample data sets in four languages (English, Spanish, Swedish and Basque) demonstrate that the combination system obtains a significantly lower error rate when compared with other systems participating in the SENSEVAL2 exercise, yielding state-of-the-art performance on these data sets.
This paper presents a novel approach for word sense disambiguation. The underlying algorithm has two main components: (1) pattern learning from available sense-tagged corpora (SemCor), from dictionary definitions (WordNet) and from a generated corpus (GenCor); and (2) instance based learning with automatic feature selection, when training data is available for a particular word. The ideas described in this paper were implemented in a system that achieves excellent performance on the data provided during the SENSEVAL-2 evaluation exercise, for both English all words and English lexical sample tasks.
Various Machine Learning (ML) approaches have been demonstrated to produce relatively successful Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) systems. There are still unexplained differences among the performance measurements of different algorithms, hence it is warranted to deepen the investigation into which algorithm has the right ‘bias’ for this task. In this paper, we show that this is not easy to accomplish, due to intricate interactions between information sources, parameter settings, and properties of the training data. We investigate the impact of parameter optimization on generalization accuracy in a memory-based learning approach to English and Dutch WSD. A ‘word-expert’ architecture was adopted, yielding a set of classifiers, each specialized in one single wordform. The experts consist of multiple memory-based learning classifiers, each taking different information sources as input, combined in a voting scheme. We optimized the architectural and parametric settings for each individual word-expert by performing cross-validation experiments on the learning material. The results of these experiments show that the variation of both the algorithmic parameters and the information sources available to the classifiers leads to large fluctuations in accuracy. We demonstrate that optimization per word-expert leads to an overall significant improvement in the generalization accuracies of the produced WSD systems.
This paper presents a comprehensive empirical exploration and evaluation of a diverse range of data characteristics which influence word sense disambiguation performance. It focuses on a set of six core supervised algorithms, including three variants of Bayesian classifiers, a cosine model, non-hierarchical decision lists, and an extension of the transformation-based learning model. Performance is investigated in detail with respect to the following parameters: (a) target language (English, Spanish, Swedish and Basque); (b) part of speech; (c) sense granularity; (d) inclusion and exclusion of major feature classes; (e) variable context width (further broken down by part-of-speech of keyword); (f) number of training examples; (g) baseline probability of the most likely sense; (h) sense distributional entropy; (i) number of senses per keyword; (j) divergence between training and test data; (k) degree of (artificially introduced) noise in the training data; (l) the effectiveness of an algorithm's confidence rankings; and (m) a full keyword breakdown of the performance of each algorithm. The paper concludes with a brief analysis of similarities, differences, strengths and weaknesses of the algorithms and a hierarchical clustering of these algorithms based on agreement of sense classification behavior. Collectively, the paper constitutes the most comprehensive survey of evaluation measures and tests yet applied to sense disambiguation algorithms. And it does so over a diverse range of supervised algorithms, languages and parameter spaces in single unified experimental framework.
Has system performance on Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) reached a limit? Automatic systems don't perform nearly as well as humans on the task, and from the results of the SENSEVAL exercises, recent improvements in system performance appear negligible or even negative. Still, systems do perform much better than the baselines, so something is being done right. System evaluation is crucial to explain these results and to show the way forward. Indeed, the success of any project in WSD is tied to the evaluation methodology used, and especially to the formalization of the task that the systems perform. The evaluation of WSD has turned out to be as difficult as designing the systems in the first place.
The aim of our paper is twofold: to introduce some general reflections on the task of lexical semantic annotation and the adequacy of existing lexical-semantic reference resources, while giving an overall description of the Italian lexical sample task for the SENSEVAL-2 experiment. We suggest how the SENSEVAL exercise (and comparison between the two editions of the experiment) can be employed to evaluate the lexical reference resources used for annotation. We conclude with a few general remarks on the gap between the lexicon, a partially decontextualised object, and the corpus, where context plays a significant role.
This paper explores the role of domain information in word sense disambiguation. The underlying hypothesis is that domain labels, such as MEDICINE, ARCHITECTURE and SPORT, provide a useful way to establish semantic relations among word senses, which can be profitably used during the disambiguation process. Results obtained at the SENSEVAL-2 initiative confirm that for a significant subset of words domain information can be used to disambiguate with a very high level of precision.
Gale, as he liked to be called by his friends and family, had extremely broad interests, both professionally and otherwise. His professional career at Bell Labs included radio astronomy, economics, statistics and computational linguistics.
Among other characteristics, an intelligent entity – whether an intelligent autonomous agent, or an intelligent assistant – must have the ability to go beyond just following direct instructions while in pursuit of a goal. This is necessary to be able to behave intelligently when the assumptions surrounding the direct instructions are not valid, or there are no direct instructions at all. For example even a seemingly direct instruction of ‘bring me coffee’ to an assistant requires the assistant to figure out what to do if the coffee pot is out of water, or if the coffee machine is broken. The assistant will definitely be referred to as lacking intelligence if he or she were to report to the boss that there is no water in the coffee pot and ask the boss what to do next. On the other hand, an assistant will be considered intelligent if he or she can take a high level request of ‘make travel arrangements for my trip to International AI conference 20XX’ and figure out the lecture times of the boss; take into account airline, hotel and car rental preferences; take into account the budget limitations, etc.; overcome hurdles such as the preferred flight being sold out; and make satisfactory arrangements. This example illustrates one benchmark of intelligence – the level of request an entity can handle.
In Chapter 4 we formulated several knowledge representation and problem solving domains using AnsProlog* and focused on the program development aspect. In this chapter we consider reasoning about actions in a dynamic world and its application to plan verification, simple planning, planning with various kinds of domain constraints, observation assimilation and explanation, and diagnosis. We do a detailed and systematic formulation – in AnsProlog* – of the above issues starting from the simplest reasoning about action scenarios and gradually increasing its expressiveness by adding features such as causal constraints, and parallel execution of actions. We also prove properties of our AnsProlog* formulations using the results in Chapter 3.
Our motivation behind the choice of a detailed formulation of this domain is twofold. (i) Reasoning about actions captures both major issues of this book: knowledge representation and declarative problem solving. To reason about actions we need to formulate the frame problem whose intuitive meaning is that objects in the worlds do not normally change their properties. Formalizing this has been one of the benchmark problems of knowledge representation and reasoning formalisms. We show how AnsProlog* is up to this task. Reasoning about actions also forms the ground work for planning with actions, an important problem solving task. We present AnsProlog encodings of planning such that the answer sets each encode a plan. (ii) Our second motivation is in regard to the demonstration of the usefulness of the results in Chapter 3.
This appendix is based on [Pap94] and it is recommended that the reader refer to that for detailed exposition on Turing machines, and computational complexity.
Intuitively, a deterministic Turing machine (DTM) is an automata bundled with a semi-infinite tape with a cursor to read from and write to. So, like an automata, there is a state and state transitions are based on the current state and what the cursor points to on the tape. But in addition to the state transition, there is an accompanying transition that dictates if the symbol in the tape location pointed to by the cursor should be overwritten and if the cursor should move to the left or right – by one cell – of its current position. Special symbols mark the beginning of the tape (>), the end of the input on the tape (⊔), and the output of the computation (‘halt’, ‘yes’, ‘no’). We now give a formal definition of DTMs.
Definition 151 A DTM is a quadruple M = (S, Σ, δ, s0) where S is a finite set of nonfinal states that includes s0 the initial state, Σ is a finite alphabet of symbols including the special symbols > and ⊔, and δ is a transition function that maps S × Σ to S ∪ {halt, yes, no} × Σ × {←, →, –}
Intuitively, δ is the control (or the program) of the machine that dictates how the machine behaves.
In this chapter we discuss three query answering and answer set computing systems: Smodels, dlv and PROLOG. Both Smodels and dlv are answer set computing systems and allow an input language with features and constructs not in AnsProlog*. While the Smodels system extends AnsProlog⊥ and AnsProlog⊥, ¬, the dlv system extends AnsProlog⊥,or and AnsProlog⊥,or,¬. We describe the syntax and semantics of the input language of Smodels and dlv and present several programs in their syntax. This chapter can be thought of as a quick introduction to programming in Smodels and dlv, not a full-fledged manual. At the time of writing this, both Smodels and dlv were evolving systems and readers are recommended to visit their corresponding web sites for the latest features.
After describing the Smodels and dlv systems with several small example programs, we consider several medium and large size applications and encode them using one or the other. In particular, we consider encoding of combinatorial auctions together with logical preference criteria, planning with durative actions and resources, resource constraint project scheduling, and specification and verification of active databases.
Finally, we give a brief introduction to the PROLOG interpreter and its approach to answering queries with respect to AnsProlog programs. We present conditions for AnsProlog programs and queries for which the PROLOG interpreter is sound and complete. We illustrate these conditions through several examples.
Smodels
The Smodels system is meant for computing the answer sets of AnsProlog⊥ and AnsProlog⊥,¬ programs and allows certain extensions to them.
In this chapter we formulate several knowledge representation and problem solving domains using AnsProlog*. Our focus in this chapter is on program development. We start with three well known problems from the literature of constraint satisfaction, and automated reasoning: placing queens on a chess board, determining who owns the zebra, and finding tile covering in a mutilated chess board. We show several encodings of these problems using AnsProlog*. We then discuss a general methodology for representing constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) and show how to extend it to dynamic CSPs. We then present encodings of several combinatorial graph problems such as k-colorability, Hamiltonian circuit, and k-clique. After discussing these problem solving examples, we present a general methodology of reasoning with prioritized defaults, and show how reasoning with inheritance hierarchies is a special case of this.
Three well-known problem solving tasks
A well-known methodology for declarative problem solving is the generate and test methodology whereby possible solutions to the problem are generated and non-solutions are eliminated by testing. This is similar to the common way of showing that a problem is in the class NP, where it is shown that after the non-deterministic choice the testing can be done in polynomial time. The ‘generate’ part in an AnsProlog* formulation of a problem solving task is achieved by enumerating the possibilities, and the ‘test’ part is achieved by having constraints that eliminate the possibilities that violate the test conditions. Thus the answer sets of the resulting program correspond to solutions of the given problem.