DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Language Generation Using Link Grammar for General Conversational Intelligence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Language Generation Using Link Grammar for General Conversational Intelligence Natural Language Generation Using Link Grammar for General Conversational Intelligence Vignav Ramesh1,2 and Anton Kolonin2,3,4 1 Saratoga High School, Saratoga CA 95070, USA 2 SingularityNET Foundation, Amsterdam, Netherlands 3 Aigents, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation 4 Novosibirsk State University, Russian Federation {rvignav, akolonin}@gmail.com Abstract. Many current artificial general intelligence (AGI) and natural language processing (NLP) architectures do not possess general conversational intelli- gence—that is, they either do not deal with language or are unable to convey knowledge in a form similar to the human language without manual, labor-inten- sive methods such as template-based customization. In this paper, we propose a new technique to automatically generate grammatically valid sentences using the Link Grammar database. This natural language generation method far outper- forms current state-of-the-art baselines and may serve as the final component in a proto-AGI question answering pipeline that understandably handles natural lan- guage material. Keywords: Interpretable Artificial Intelligence, Formal Grammar, Natural Lan- guage Generation, Natural Language Processing. 1 Introduction 1.1 Artificial General Intelligence and Natural Language Processing Currently, the fields of AGI and NLP have little overlap, with few existing AGI archi- tectures capable of comprehending natural language and nearly all NLP systems founded upon specialized, hardcoded rules and language-specific frameworks that are not generalizable to the various complex domains of human language [1]. Furthermore, while some NLP and AGI frameworks do incorporate some form of natural language understanding, they are still unable to convey knowledge in a form similar to the human language without manual, labor-intensive methods such as template-based customiza- tion. 1.2 Motivations Interpretable Language Processing. Unlike explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), which refers to methods and techniques in the application of artificial intelligence (AI) such that the results generated by the AI model can be understood by humans, inter- 2 pretable AI (IAI) requires both the AI model itself as well as its results to be under- standable. It contrasts with the concept of “black box” algorithms in machine learning where even developers cannot explain how the AI arrived at a specific decision. Inter- pretable language processing (ILP) is an extension of the IAI concept to NLP; ILP is expected to allow for acquisition of natural language, comprehension of textual com- munications, and production of textual messages in a reasonable and transparent way [2]. Our natural language generation (NLG) architecture intends to serve as an ILP method that allows for the generation of grammatically valid sentences in an interpret- able manner. Our work not only provides explainable results but also provides an inter- pretable model for sentence generation, since we rely on Link Grammar which is com- prehensible in itself. Unsupervised Language Learning. Current methods of grammar learning, such as deep neural networks (DNNs), require extensive supervised training on large corpora. However, humans are capable of acquiring explainable and reasonable rules of building sentences from words based on grammatical rules and conversational patterns and clearly understand the grammatical and semantic categories of words. This raises the idea of unsupervised language learning (ULL), which enables acquisition of language grammar from unlabeled text corpora programmatically in an unsupervised way. In a ULL system, the learned knowledge is stored in a human-readable and reasonable rep- resentation [2]. Examples of ULL systems include the OpenCog AI platform’s cogni- tive pipeline that enables unsupervised grammar learning [3] and Glushchenko et al.’s grammar induction technology that unsupervisedly learns grammar from only a single input corpus [4]. The ULL pipeline consists of five main components: a text pre-cleaner (which pre- processes corpus files with configurable cleanup and normalization options), a sense pre-disambiguator (which performs word disambiguation and builds senses from to- kens), a text parser (which parses sentences into word tokens or senses), a grammar learner (which learns word categories and rules from parses), and a tester that evaluates the quality of the inferred grammar. The ultimate output of the ULL pipeline is a model of the human language; one such model is the Link Grammar dictionary itself, which serves as the knowledge base behind our NLG architecture [5]. Question Answering. Question answering is a computer science discipline within the fields of information retrieval and natural language processing concerned with building systems that automatically answer questions posed by humans in a natural language. An explainable question answering pipeline would consist of two main components: natural language comprehension, and natural language generation. Natural language comprehension involves first parsing the question (otherwise known as the input query) based on a formal grammar such as Link Grammar, and then performing semantic in- terpretation (extracting the concept represented by the query and determining relation- ships between individual parts of the parsed query obtained in the previous step). The natural language generation component then involves semantic query execution (deter- mining the answer to the input question based on the semantic relationships extracted in the previous step) and the use of a formal grammar to construct grammatically valid 3 sentences from the words associated with the semantic relationships derived during query execution [2]. A diagram of the question answering pipeline is shown below. Fig. 1. Question answering workflow Our current work is concerned with the final part of the question answering pipeline; with Link Grammar serving as the requisite formal grammar, the proposed NLG archi- tecture automates sentence construction from the words derived in the penultimate part of the pipeline and thereby enables question answering with minimal to no human in- terference. 1.3 Link Grammar Link Grammar is founded upon the idea that each word possesses a feature structure consisting of a set of typed connectors and disjuncts associating those connectors. 4 Rules, which correspond to lexical entries or grammatical categories, describe a list of words and a set of their defining disjuncts. Generation involves matching up connectors from one word with connectors from another, given the known set of disjuncts for both of them. A connector represents either the left or right half of a grammatical link of a given type, and different types of connectors are denoted by letters or pairs of letters like S or SX. For instance, if a word A has the connector S+, this means that A can have an S link to its right. If a word b has the connector S-, this means that b can have an S link to its left. In this case, if A occurs to the left of b in a sentence, then the two words can be joined together with an S link [1]. The “Link Grammar dictionary,” then, is a data- base that maps all common words of a given language to the connectors that define them. Disjuncts are sets of connectors that constitute the legal use of a given word. For instance, if word A has the expression {C-} & (X+ or Y+), where {} denotes optional- ity, then A has the following four disjuncts: C- X+, X+, C- Y+, Y+. Macros are single symbols that define large connector expressions. For instance, let the macro <macro> define the expression {C-} & (X+ or Y+) as above. Then, the ex- pression <macro> or {W+ & Z-} is simply shorthand for ({C-} & (X+ or Y+)) or {W+ & Z-}. Macros are used throughout the Link Grammar dictionary to reduce redundancy of connector expressions and increase readability. In Link Grammar notation, a sentence is a set of tokens (words, punctuation, and other syntactic structures) that may be linked by matching connectors between pairs of tokens. For instance, consider the sentence, “The cat caught a mouse.” The Link Gram- mar parse structure for this sentence is: Fig. 2. Link Grammar parse of “The cat caught a mouse.” The rules of Link Grammar impose additional constraints beyond the matching of connectors, namely the planarity and connectivity metarules. Planarity means that links do not cross, while connectivity means that the links and words of a sentence must form a connected graph—all the words must be linked to the other words in the sentence via at least one path. Overall, the structure of grammatical knowledge as stored in Link Grammar appears interpretable, human-readable, and maintainable, including the ability to add new rules and amend existing ones based on the intent of a human linguist maintaining the knowledge base or a programmatic language learning framework such as the ULL pipe- line discussed in Section 1.2 [3, 4]. Our proposed architecture utilizes the English Link Grammar dictionaries to perform natural language generation. Link Grammar Database. The Link Grammar database is comprised of dictionaries for each of more than 10 languages. In this paper, we focus on the English database, 5 which includes approximately 1,430 distinct rules that each correspond to word clus- ters—groups of words with the same sets of grammar properties—and 86,863 word forms. Dictionaries may be represented as hierarchical trees of files, where a master “.dict” file maps all common words to their defining connector expressions and refer- ences supporting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Protein Interaction Extraction Systemusing a Link Grammar Parser from Biomedical Abstracts
    World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Biomedical and Biological Engineering Vol:1, No:5, 2007 PIELG: A Protein Interaction Extraction System using a Link Grammar Parser from Biomedical Abstracts Rania A. Abul Seoud, Nahed H. Solouma, Abou-Baker M. Youssef, and Yasser M. Kadah, Senior Member, IEEE failure. Applications that repair or replace portions of or Abstract—Due to the ever growing amount of publications about whole living tissues (e.g., bone, dentine, or bladder) using protein-protein interactions, information extraction from text is living cells is named Tissue Engineering (TE). For example, increasingly recognized as one of crucial technologies in dentine formation is the process of regenerating dental tissues bioinformatics. This paper presents a Protein Interaction Extraction by tissue engineering principles and technology. Dentine System using a Link Grammar Parser from biomedical abstracts formation is governed by biological mediators or growth (PIELG). PIELG uses linkage given by the Link Grammar Parser to start a case based analysis of contents of various syntactic roles as factors (protein) and interactions amongst different proteins. well as their linguistically significant and meaningful combinations. Dentine formation needs the support of continuous updated The system uses phrasal-prepositional verbs patterns to overcome information about protein-protein interactions. preposition combinations problems. The recall and precision are Researches in the last decade have resulted in the 74.4% and 62.65%, respectively. Experimental evaluations with two production of a large amount of information about protein other state-of-the-art extraction systems indicate that PIELG system functions involved in dentine formation process. That achieves better performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing a Portable Clinical NLP System with a Common Data Model: a Lisp Perspective
    Implementing a portable clinical NLP system with a common data model: a Lisp perspective The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Luo, Yuan, and Peter Szolovits, "Implementing a portable clinical NLP system with a common data model: a Lisp perspective." Proceedings, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM 2018), December 3-6, 2018, Madrid, Spain (Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE, 2018): doi 10.1109/BIBM.2018.8621521 ©2018 Author(s) As Published 10.1109/BIBM.2018.8621521 Publisher Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Version Original manuscript Citable link https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/124439 Terms of Use Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike Detailed Terms http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Implementing a Portable Clinical NLP System with a Common Data Model – a Lisp Perspective Yuan Luo* Peter Szolovits* Dept. of Preventive Medicine CSAIL Northwestern University MIT Chicago, USA Cambridge, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract— This paper presents a Lisp architecture for a annotations, often in idiosyncratic representations. This makes portable NLP system, termed LAPNLP, for processing clinical it quite difficult to chain together sequences of operations. Alt- notes. LAPNLP integrates multiple standard, customized and hough several recent projects have achieved reasonable in-house developed NLP tools. Our system facilitates portability success in analyzing certain types of clinical narratives [3-6], across different institutions and data systems by incorporating an enriched Common Data Model (CDM) to standardize neces- efforts towards a common data model (CDM) to ensure port- sary data elements.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14: Dependency Parsing
    Speech and Language Processing. Daniel Jurafsky & James H. Martin. Copyright © 2021. All rights reserved. Draft of September 21, 2021. CHAPTER 14 Dependency Parsing The focus of the two previous chapters has been on context-free grammars and constituent-based representations. Here we present another important family of dependency grammars grammar formalisms called dependency grammars. In dependency formalisms, phrasal constituents and phrase-structure rules do not play a direct role. Instead, the syntactic structure of a sentence is described solely in terms of directed binary grammatical relations between the words, as in the following dependency parse: root dobj det nmod (14.1) nsubj nmod case I prefer the morning flight through Denver Relations among the words are illustrated above the sentence with directed, labeled typed dependency arcs from heads to dependents. We call this a typed dependency structure because the labels are drawn from a fixed inventory of grammatical relations. A root node explicitly marks the root of the tree, the head of the entire structure. Figure 14.1 shows the same dependency analysis as a tree alongside its corre- sponding phrase-structure analysis of the kind given in Chapter 12. Note the ab- sence of nodes corresponding to phrasal constituents or lexical categories in the dependency parse; the internal structure of the dependency parse consists solely of directed relations between lexical items in the sentence. These head-dependent re- lationships directly encode important information that is often buried in the more complex phrase-structure parses. For example, the arguments to the verb prefer are directly linked to it in the dependency structure, while their connection to the main verb is more distant in the phrase-structure tree.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Persian Syntactic Dependency Treebank
    Development of a Persian Syntactic Dependency Treebank Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli Manouchehr Kouhestani Amirsaeid Moloodi Department of Computer Science Department of Linguistics Department of Linguistics Columbia University Tarbiat Modares University University of Tehran New York, NY Tehran, Iran Tehran, Iran [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract tions in tasks such as machine translation. Depen- dency treebanks are collections of sentences with This paper describes the annotation process their corresponding dependency trees. In the last and linguistic properties of the Persian syn- decade, many dependency treebanks have been de- tactic dependency treebank. The treebank veloped for a large number of languages. There are consists of approximately 30,000 sentences at least 29 languages for which at least one depen- annotated with syntactic roles in addition to morpho-syntactic features. One of the unique dency treebank is available (Zeman et al., 2012). features of this treebank is that there are al- Dependency trees are much more similar to the hu- most 4800 distinct verb lemmas in its sen- man understanding of language and can easily rep- tences making it a valuable resource for ed- resent the free word-order nature of syntactic roles ucational goals. The treebank is constructed in sentences (Kubler¨ et al., 2009). with a bootstrapping approach by means of available tagging and parsing tools and man- Persian is a language with about 110 million ually correcting the annotations. The data is speakers all over the world (Windfuhr, 2009), yet in splitted into standard train, development and terms of the availability of teaching materials and test set in the CoNLL dependency format and annotated data for text processing, it is undoubt- is freely available to researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads." the Open Information Security Foundation
    Performance Testing Suricata The Effect of Configuration Variables On Offline Suricata Performance A Project Completed for CS 6266 Under Jonathon T. Giffin, Assistant Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology by Winston H Messer Project Advisor: Matt Jonkman, President, Open Information Security Foundation December 2011 Messer ii Abstract The Suricata IDS/IPS engine, a viable alternative to Snort, has a multitude of potential configurations. A simplified automated testing system was devised for the purpose of performance testing Suricata in an offline environment. Of the available configuration variables, seventeen were analyzed independently by testing in fifty-six configurations. Of these, three variables were found to have a statistically significant effect on performance: Detect Engine Profile, Multi Pattern Algorithm, and CPU affinity. Acknowledgements In writing the final report on this endeavor, I would like to start by thanking four people who made this project possible: Matt Jonkman, President, Open Information Security Foundation: For allowing me the opportunity to carry out this project under his supervision. Victor Julien, Lead Programmer, Open Information Security Foundation and Anne-Fleur Koolstra, Documentation Specialist, Open Information Security Foundation: For their willingness to share their wisdom and experience of Suricata via email for the past four months. John M. Weathersby, Jr., Executive Director, Open Source Software Institute: For allowing me the use of Institute equipment for the creation of a suitable testing
    [Show full text]
  • Lexicalization and Grammar Development
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons IRCS Technical Reports Series Institute for Research in Cognitive Science April 1995 Lexicalization and Grammar Development B. Srinivas University of Pennsylvania Dania Egedi University of Pennsylvania Christine D. Doran University of Pennsylvania Tilman Becker University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports Srinivas, B.; Egedi, Dania; Doran, Christine D.; and Becker, Tilman, "Lexicalization and Grammar Development" (1995). IRCS Technical Reports Series. 138. https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/138 University of Pennsylvania Institute for Research in Cognitive Science Technical Report No. IRCS-95-12. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/138 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lexicalization and Grammar Development Abstract In this paper we present a fully lexicalized grammar formalism as a particularly attractive framework for the specification of natural language grammars. We discuss in detail Feature-based, Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars (FB-LTAGs), a representative of the class of lexicalized grammars. We illustrate the advantages of lexicalized grammars in various contexts of natural language processing, ranging from wide-coverage grammar development to parsing and machine translation. We also present a method for compact and efficientepr r esentation of lexicalized trees. In diesem Beitrag präsentieren wir einen völlig lexikalisierten Grammatikformalismus als eine besonders geeignete Basis für die Spezifikation onv Grammatiken für natürliche Sprachen. Wir stellen feature- basierte, lexikalisierte Tree Adjoining Grammars (FB-LTAGs) vor, ein Vertreter der Klasse der lexikalisierten Grammatiken. Wir führen die Vorteile von lexikalisierten Grammatiken in verschiedenen Bereichen der maschinellen Sprachverarbeitung aus; von der Entwicklung von Grammatiken für weite Sprachbereiche über Parsing bis zu maschineller Übersetzung.
    [Show full text]
  • Parsing Aligned Parallel Corpus by Projecting Syntactic Relations from Annotated Source Corpus
    Parsing Aligned Parallel Corpus by Projecting Syntactic Relations from Annotated Source Corpus Shailly Goyal Niladri Chatterjee Department of Mathematics Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016, India {shailly goyal, niladri iitd}@yahoo.com Abstract approaches either use examples from the same lan- guage, e.g., (Bod et al., 2003; Streiter, 2002), or Example-based parsing has already been they try to imitate the parse of a given sentence proposed in literature. In particular, at- using the parse of the corresponding sentence in tempts are being made to develop tech- some other language (Hwa et al., 2005; Yarowsky niques for language pairs where the source and Ngai, 2001). In particular, Hwa et al. (2005) and target languages are different, e.g. have proposed a scheme called direct projection Direct Projection Algorithm (Hwa et al., algorithm (DPA) which assumes that the relation 2005). This enables one to develop parsed between two words in the source language sen- corpus for target languages having fewer tence is preserved across the corresponding words linguistic tools with the help of a resource- in the parallel target language. This is called Di- rich source language. The DPA algo- rect Correspondence Assumption (DCA). rithm works on the assumption of Di- However, with respect to Indian languages we rect Correspondence which simply means observed that the DCA does not hold good all the that the relation between two words of time. In order to overcome the difficulty, in this the source language sentence can be pro- work, we propose an algorithm based on a vari- jected directly between the correspond- ation of the DCA, which we call pseudo Direct ing words of the parallel target language Correspondence Assumption (pDCA).
    [Show full text]
  • Dependency-Length Minimization in Natural and Artificial Languages*
    Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 2008, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 256 – 282 DOI: 10.1080/09296170802159512 Dependency-Length Minimization in Natural and Artificial Languages* David Temperley Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester ABSTRACT A wide range of evidence points to a preference for syntactic structures in which dependencies are short. Here we examine the question: what kinds of dependency configurations minimize dependency length? We consider two well-established principles of dependency-length minimization; that dependencies should be consistently right-branching or left-branching, and that shorter dependent phrases should be closer to the head. We also add a third, novel, principle; that some ‘‘opposite-branching’’ of one-word phrases is desirable. In a series of computational experiments, using unordered dependency trees gathered from written English, we examine the effect of these three principles on dependency length, and show that all three contribute significantly to dependency-length reduction. Finally, we present what appears to be the optimal ‘‘grammar’’ for dependency-length minimization. INTRODUCTION A wide range of evidence from diverse areas of linguistic research points to a preference for syntactic structures in which dependencies between related words are short.1 This preference is reflected in numerous psycholinguistic phenomena: structures with long depen- dencies appear to cause increased complexity in comprehen- sion and tend to be avoided in production. The preference for shorter dependencies has also been cited as an explanation for certain *Address correspondence to: David Temperley, Eastman School of Music, 26 Gibbs Street, Rochester, NY 14604. Tel: 585-274-1557. E-mail: [email protected] 1Thanks to Daniel Gildea for valuable comments on a draft of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Language Processing (NLP): Written and Oral Involves Processing of Written Text Using Computer Models at Lexical, Syntactic, and Semantic Level
    Natural Language Processing (NLP): written and oral Involves processing of written text using computer models at lexical, syntactic, and semantic level. Introduction: 1. Understanding (of language) – map text/speech to immediately useful form. 2. Generation (of language) Sentence Analysis Phases: 1. Morphological Analysis: extracts root word from declined/inflection form of word after removing suffices and prefixes. 2. Syntactic Analysis: builds a structural description of a sentence using MAP (Morphological Analysis Process) based on grammatical rules, called Parsing. 3. Semantic Analysis: Creates a semantic structure by ascribing a literal meaning to sentence using parse structure obtained in syntactic phase. It maps individual words into corresponding objects in the knowledge base. Focus is on creation of target representation of the meaning of a sentence. 4. Pragmatic Analysis: to establish meaning of a sentence in different contexts. 5. Discourse Analysis: Interpretation based on belief during conversation. Grammars and Parsers: Parsing: Process of analyzing an input sequence in order to determine its structure with respect to a given grammar. Types of Parsing: 1. Rule-based parsing: syntactic structure of language is provided in the form of linguistic rules which can be coded as production rules that are similar to context-free rules. 1. Top-down parsing: Start with start symbol and apply grammar rules in the forward direction until the terminal symbols of the parse tree correspond to the words in the sentence. 2. Bottom-up parsing: Start with the words in the sentence in the sentence and apply grammar rules in the backward direction until a single tree is produced whose root matches with the start symbol.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraction of Protein Interaction Information from Unstructured Text Using a Link Grammar Parser Rania A
    Extraction of Protein Interaction Information from Unstructured Text Using a link Grammar Parser Rania A. Abul Seoud1, Nahed H. Solouma2, Abou-Bakr M. Youssef3, Yasser M. Kadah3 1,3Misr University for Science and Technology, 6 October City, Egypt 2Laser Institute, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt 3Biomedical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt E-mail: [email protected] Abstract- As research into disease pathology and cellular number of groups reported application of pattern-matching- function continues to generate vast amounts of data, pertaining based systems for protein-function information extraction. to protein and gene interactions, there is a critical need to The shortcoming of such systems is their inability to process capture these results in structured formats allowing for correctly anything other than short, straightforward computational analysis. Although many efforts have been made statements, which are quite rare in information-saturated to create databases that store this information in computer readable form, populating these sources largely requires a MEDLINE and PubMED abstracts. Several attempts have manual process of interpreting and extracting interaction been made to utilize shallow-parsing techniques for the task relationships from the biological research literature. Being able of biological information. Shallow parsers perform partial to efficiently and accurately automate the extraction of decomposition of a sentence structure. In some cases, interactions from unstructured text, would improve the content shallow-parsers are used in combination with various of these databases, and provide a method for managing the heuristic and statistical methods. Information extraction continued growth of new literature being published. Hence, it is systems based on the full-sentence parsing approach deal important to have a fully automated extraction system for the with the structure of an entire sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Wanderlust: Extracting Semantic Relations from Natural Language Text Using Dependency Grammar Patterns
    Wanderlust: Extracting Semantic Relations from Natural Language Text Using Dependency Grammar Patterns Alan Akbik Jürgen Broß Freie Universität Berlin Freie Universität Berlin Institute of Computer Science Institute of Computer Science 14195 Berlin, Germany 14195 Berlin, Germany [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT SUMO [20] have been manually constructed in a laborious A great share of applications in modern information tech- and expensive process. While such a procedure offers very nology can benefit from large coverage, machine accessible high precision, it naturally does not scale well. High cover- knowledge bases. However, the bigger part of todays knowl- age and up-to-dateness are difficult to be achieved this way. edge is provided in the form of unstructured data, mostly Inspired by success stories such as Wikipedia, recent ap- plain text. As an initial step to exploit such data, we present proaches pursue the idea of building large-scale structured Wanderlust, an algorithm that automatically extracts se- knowledge bases by leveraging the collaborative power of mantic relations from natural language text. The procedure thousands of volunteers [26, 22]. We believe this to be a uses deep linguistic patterns that are defined over the depen- very promising way. However, similar to other Web 2.0-style dency grammar of sentences. Due to its linguistic nature, applications, such an approach depends heavily on a critical the method performs in an unsupervised fashion and is not mass of users. In fact, this approach entails a circular de- restricted to any specific type of semantic relation. The ap- pendency: A critical mass of users can only be attracted if plicability of the proposed approach is examined in a case enough structured data has been collected so that people can study, in which it is put to the task of generating a seman- start developing compelling applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretable Natural Language Segmentation Based on Link Grammar
    Interpretable Natural Language Segmentation Based on Link Grammar Vignav Ramesh Anton Kolonin SingularityNET, Saratoga H.S. Novosibirsk State University Saratoga, CA, USA Novosibirsk, Russia November 15, 2020 November 15, 2020 1 / 27 Overview I Introduction • Natural Language Segmentation • Sources of Unsegmented Text • Motivations • Link Grammar I Methodology • Loader • Segment I Results I Conclusion • Applications • Future Work November 15, 2020 2 / 27 Introduction November 15, 2020 3 / 27 Natural Language Segmentation I Process of dividing written text into meaningful units I Focus on the sub-problem of sentence segmentation • Dividing a string of natural language (NL) text into its component sentences that can then be used to build a parse tree • Proposed architecture solely relies on grammatical relationships between tokens I Generalizes to languages other than English or Russian November 15, 2020 4 / 27 Sources of Unsegmented Text 1. Text output from speech-to-text (STT) recognition engines • STT engines transcribe audio content and return sequences of tokens without delimeters • Often used to preprocess the inputs of voice-activated question answering or chatbot pipelines (among various other scenarios involving the transcription of audio without recorded punctuation) 2. Crawled web pages • Returns raw HTML and CSS output that often does not contain proper punctuation • HTML and CSS tags are neither accurate nor consistent sentence boundaries November 15, 2020 5 / 27 Motivations November 15, 2020 6 / 27 Interpretable Natural Language
    [Show full text]