Learning in Natural Language Dan Roth* Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL 61801 Danr@Cs.Uiuc.Edu

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Learning in Natural Language Dan Roth* Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL 61801 Danr@Cs.Uiuc.Edu Learning in Natural Language Dan Roth* Department of Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL 61801 danr@cs.uiuc.edu Abstract where hi is the relevant history when predicting Wi. Note that in this representation s can be any sequence of to• Statistics-based classifiers in natural language kens, words, part-of-speech (pos) tags. etc. are developed typically by assuming a genera• tive model for the data, estimating its param• This general scheme has been used to derive classifiers eters from training data and then using Bayes for a variety of natural language applications including rule to obtain a classifier. For many problems speech applications [Rabiner, 1989], part of speech tag• the assumptions made by the generative models ging [Kupiec, 1992; Schiitze, 1995], word-sense disam• are evidently wrong, leaving open the question biguation [Gale et al., 1993], context-sensitive spelling of why these approaches work. correction [Golding, 1995] and others. While the use of This paper presents a learning theory account Bayes rule is harmless, most of the work in statistical of the major statistical approaches to learning language modeling and ambiguity resolution is devoted in natural language. A class of Linear Statis- to estimating terms of the form Pr(w\h). The genera• tical Queries (LSQ) hypotheses is defined and tive models used to estimate these terms typically make learning with it is shown to exhibit some ro- Markov or other independence assumptions. It is evident bustness properties. Many statistical learn• from looking at language data that these assumptions are ers used in natural language, including naive often patently false and that there are significant global Bayes, Markov Models and Maximum Entropy dependencies both within and across sentences. For ex• models are shown to be LSQ hypotheses, ex• ample, when using (Hidden) Markov Model (HMM) as a plaining the robustness of these predictors even generative model for the problem of part-of-speech tag• when the underlying probabilistic assumptions ging, estimating the probability of a sequence of tags in• do not hold. This coherent view of when and volves assuming that the part of speech tag ti of the word why learning approaches work in this context Wi is independent of other words in the sentence, given may help to develop better learning methods the preceding tag ti-1. It is not surprising therefore that making these assumptions results in a poor estimate of and an understanding of the role of learning in 1 natural language inferences. the probability distribution density function . However, classifiers built based on these false assumptions never• theless seem to behave quite robustly in many cases. 1 Introduction In this paper we develop a learning theory account Generative probability models provide a principled way for this phenomenon. We show that a variety of models to the study of statistical classification in complex do• used for learning in Natural Language make their predic• mains such as natural language. It is common to assume tion using Linear Statistical Queries (LSQ) hypotheses. a generative model for such data, estimate its parame• This is a family of linear predictors over a set of fairly ters from training data and then use Bayes rule to ob• simple features which are directly related to the indepen• tain a classifier for this model. In the context of natural dence assumptions of the probabilistic model assumed. language most classifiers are derived from probabilistic We claim that the success of classification methods which language models which estimate the probability of a sen• are derived from incorrect probabilistic density estima• tence s, say, using Bayes rule, and then decompose this tion is due to the combination of two factors: probability into a product of conditional probabilities • The low expressive power of the derived classifier. according to the generative model assumptions. • Robustness properties shared by all linear statistical queries hypotheses. "Research supported by NSF grants IIS-9801638 and 1 Experimental evidence to that effect will not be included SBR-9873450. in this extended abstract for lack of space (but see Sec. 5). 898 NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING We define the class of LSQ hypotheses and prove these ity, a hypothesis with true error not larger than claims. Namely, we show that since the hypotheses are A learner that can carry out this computed over a feature space chosen so that they per• task for any distribution D is called an efficient (agnos- form well on training data, learning theory implies that tic) pac learner for hypothesis class if the sample size they perform well on previously unseen data, irrespec• and the time required to produce the hypothesis tive of whether the underlying probabilistic assumptions are polynomial in the relevant parameters. hold. We then show how different models used in the lit- In practice, one cannot compute the true error erature can be cast as LSQ hypotheses by selecting the and in many cases it may be hard to guaran• statistical queries (i.e., set of features) appropriately and tee that the computed hypothesis h is close to optimal in how this affects the robustness of the derived hypothesis. Instead, the input to the learning algorithm is a sam• The main contribution of the paper is in providing a ple of m labeled examples, the learner unified learning theory account for a variety of methods tries to find a hypothesis h with a small empirical error that are widely used in natural language applications. The hope is that providing a coherent explanation for when and why learning approaches work in this context and hopes that it behaves well on future examples. could help in developing better learning methods and a The hope that a classifier learned from a training set better understanding of the role of learning in natural will perform well on previously unseen examples is based language inferences. on the basic theorem of learning theory [Valiant, 1984; We first present learning theory preliminaries and then Vapnik, 1995] which, stated informally, guarantees that define the class of linear statistical queries hypotheses if the training data and the test data are sampled from and discuss their properties. In Sec. 4 we show how to the same distribution, good performance on large enough cast known probabilistic predictors in this framework, training sample guarantees good performance on the test and in Sec. 5 we discuss the difference between LSQ data (i.e., good "true" error). This is quantified in the learning and other learning algorithms. following uniform convergence result: 2 Preliminaries In an instance of pac learning [Valiant, 1984], a learner needs to determine a close approximation of an un• known target function from labeled examples of that where k is some constant and is the VC- function. The unknown function is as• dimension of the class [Vapnik, 1982], a combinatorial sumed to be an element of a known function class parameter which measures the richness of over the instance space X = and the exam• ples are distributed according to some unknown prob• In practice the sample size \S\ may be fixed, and the ability distribution D on X. A learning algorithm draws result simply indicates how much can one count on the a sample of labeled examples according to D and even• true accuracy of a hypothesis selected according to its tually outputs a hypothesis h from some hypothesis class performance on S. Also, the computational problem of choosing a hypothesis which minimizes the empirical er• The error rate of the hypothesis h is defined to be ror on S (or even approximates a minimum) may be hard err or (h) = The learner goal is to out• [Kearns et al, 1992; Hoffgen and Simon, 1992]. Finally, put, with probability at least a hypothesis notice that the main assumption in the theorem above is whose error rate is at most e, for the given error parame• that the training data and the test data are sampled from ter e and confidence parameter using sample size that the same distribution; Golding and Roth [1999] discuss is polynomial in the relevant parameters. The learner is this assumption in the NLP context. then called a pac learner. The algorithm is an efficient pac learning algorithm if this is done in time polynomial in the relevant parameters. 3 Robust Learning A more realistic variant of the pac-learning model, the This section defines a learning algorithm and a class of agnostic learning model [Haussler, 1992; Kearns et al, hypotheses with some generalization properties, that we 1992], applies when we do not want to assume that the later show to capture many probabilistic learning meth• labeled training examples arise from a target con• ods used in NLP. The learning algorithm discussed here cept of an a-priori simple structure In this model is a Statistical Queries (SQ) algorithm [Kearns, 1993]. one assumes that data elements are sampled ac• An SQ algorithm can be viewed as a learning algorithm cording to some arbitrary distribution D on that interacts with its environment in a restricted way. D may simply reflect the distribution of the data as Rather than viewing examples, the algorithm only re• it occurs "in nature" (including contradictions) with• quests the values of various statistics on the distribution out assuming that the labels are generated according of the labeled examples to construct its hypothesis. (E.g. to some "rule". The true error of the hypothesis is "What is the probability that a randomly chosen labeled defined to be and the example (x, I) has = 0 and l = A feature is an in• goal of the learner is to compute, with high probabil• dicator function {0,1} which defines a subset of BOTH 899 the instance space - all those elements which are mapped 3.1 Linear Statistical Queries Hypotheses to 1 by denotes a class of such indicator functions.
Recommended publications
  • What the Neurocognitive Study of Inner Language Reveals About Our Inner Space Hélène Loevenbruck
    What the neurocognitive study of inner language reveals about our inner space Hélène Loevenbruck To cite this version: Hélène Loevenbruck. What the neurocognitive study of inner language reveals about our inner space. Epistémocritique, épistémocritique : littérature et savoirs, 2018, Langage intérieur - Espaces intérieurs / Inner Speech - Inner Space, 18. hal-02039667 HAL Id: hal-02039667 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02039667 Submitted on 20 Sep 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Preliminary version produced by the author. In Lœvenbruck H. (2008). Épistémocritique, n° 18 : Langage intérieur - Espaces intérieurs / Inner Speech - Inner Space, Stéphanie Smadja, Pierre-Louis Patoine (eds.) [http://epistemocritique.org/what-the-neurocognitive- study-of-inner-language-reveals-about-our-inner-space/] - hal-02039667 What the neurocognitive study of inner language reveals about our inner space Hélène Lœvenbruck Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Laboratoire de Psychologie et NeuroCognition (LPNC), UMR 5105, 38000, Grenoble France Abstract Our inner space is furnished, and sometimes even stuffed, with verbal material. The nature of inner language has long been under the careful scrutiny of scholars, philosophers and writers, through the practice of introspection. The use of recent experimental methods in the field of cognitive neuroscience provides a new window of insight into the format, properties, qualities and mechanisms of inner language.
    [Show full text]
  • CNS 2014 Program
    Cognitive Neuroscience Society 21st Annual Meeting, April 5-8, 2014 Marriott Copley Place Hotel, Boston, Massachusetts 2014 Annual Meeting Program Contents 2014 Committees & Staff . 2 Schedule Overview . 3 . Keynotes . 5 2014 George A . Miller Awardee . 6. Distinguished Career Contributions Awardee . 7 . Young Investigator Awardees . 8 . General Information . 10 Exhibitors . 13 . Invited-Symposium Sessions . 14 Mini-Symposium Sessions . 18 Poster Schedule . 32. Poster Session A . 33 Poster Session B . 66 Poster Session C . 98 Poster Session D . 130 Poster Session E . 163 Poster Session F . 195 . Poster Session G . 227 Poster Topic Index . 259. Author Index . 261 . Boston Marriott Copley Place Floorplan . 272. A Supplement of the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Cognitive Neuroscience Society c/o Center for the Mind and Brain 267 Cousteau Place, Davis, CA 95616 ISSN 1096-8857 © CNS www.cogneurosociety.org 2014 Committees & Staff Governing Board Mini-Symposium Committee Roberto Cabeza, Ph.D., Duke University David Badre, Ph.D., Brown University (Chair) Marta Kutas, Ph.D., University of California, San Diego Adam Aron, Ph.D., University of California, San Diego Helen Neville, Ph.D., University of Oregon Lila Davachi, Ph.D., New York University Daniel Schacter, Ph.D., Harvard University Elizabeth Kensinger, Ph.D., Boston College Michael S. Gazzaniga, Ph.D., University of California, Gina Kuperberg, Ph.D., Harvard University Santa Barbara (ex officio) Thad Polk, Ph.D., University of Michigan George R. Mangun, Ph.D., University of California,
    [Show full text]
  • Talking to Computers in Natural Language
    feature Talking to Computers in Natural Language Natural language understanding is as old as computing itself, but recent advances in machine learning and the rising demand of natural-language interfaces make it a promising time to once again tackle the long-standing challenge. By Percy Liang DOI: 10.1145/2659831 s you read this sentence, the words on the page are somehow absorbed into your brain and transformed into concepts, which then enter into a rich network of previously-acquired concepts. This process of language understanding has so far been the sole privilege of humans. But the universality of computation, Aas formalized by Alan Turing in the early 1930s—which states that any computation could be done on a Turing machine—offers a tantalizing possibility that a computer could understand language as well. Later, Turing went on in his seminal 1950 article, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” to propose the now-famous Turing test—a bold and speculative method to evaluate cial intelligence at the time. Daniel Bo- Figure 1). SHRDLU could both answer whether a computer actually under- brow built a system for his Ph.D. thesis questions and execute actions, for ex- stands language (or more broadly, is at MIT to solve algebra word problems ample: “Find a block that is taller than “intelligent”). While this test has led to found in high-school algebra books, the one you are holding and put it into the development of amusing chatbots for example: “If the number of custom- the box.” In this case, SHRDLU would that attempt to fool human judges by ers Tom gets is twice the square of 20% first have to understand that the blue engaging in light-hearted banter, the of the number of advertisements he runs, block is the referent and then perform grand challenge of developing serious and the number of advertisements is 45, the action by moving the small green programs that can truly understand then what is the numbers of customers block out of the way and then lifting the language in useful ways remains wide Tom gets?” [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Revealing the Language of Thought Brent Silby 1
    Revealing the Language of Thought Brent Silby 1 Revealing the Language of Thought An e-book by BRENT SILBY This paper was produced at the Department of Philosophy, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Copyright © Brent Silby 2000 Revealing the Language of Thought Brent Silby 2 Contents Abstract Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Thinking Sentences 1. Preliminary Thoughts 2. The Language of Thought Hypothesis 3. The Map Alternative 4. Problems with Mentalese Chapter 3: Installing New Technology: Natural Language and the Mind 1. Introduction 2. Language... what's it for? 3. Natural Language as the Language of Thought 4. What can we make of the evidence? Chapter 4: The Last Stand... Don't Replace The Old Code Yet 1. The Fight for Mentalese 2. Pinker's Resistance 3. Pinker's Continued Resistance 4. A Concluding Thought about Thought Chapter 5: A Direction for Future Thought 1. The Review 2. The Conclusion 3. Expanding the mind beyond the confines of the biological brain References / Acknowledgments Revealing the Language of Thought Brent Silby 3 Abstract Language of thought theories fall primarily into two views. The first view sees the language of thought as an innate language known as mentalese, which is hypothesized to operate at a level below conscious awareness while at the same time operating at a higher level than the neural events in the brain. The second view supposes that the language of thought is not innate. Rather, the language of thought is natural language. So, as an English speaker, my language of thought would be English. My goal is to defend the second view.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Language Processing (NLP) for Requirements Engineering: a Systematic Mapping Study
    Natural Language Processing (NLP) for Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study Liping Zhao† Department of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, liping.zhao@manchester.ac.uk Waad Alhoshan Department of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, waad.alhoshan@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk Alessio Ferrari Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" (CNR-ISTI), Pisa, Italy, alessio.ferrari@isti.cnr.it Keletso J. Letsholo Faculty of Computer Information Science, Higher Colleges of Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, kletsholo@hct.ac.ae Muideen A. Ajagbe Department of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, muideen.ajagbe@manchester.ac.uk Erol-Valeriu Chioasca Exgence Ltd., CORE, Manchester, United Kingdom, erol@exgence.com Riza T. Batista-Navarro Department of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, riza.batista@manchester.ac.uk † Corresponding author. Context: NLP4RE – Natural language processing (NLP) supported requirements engineering (RE) – is an area of research and development that seeks to apply NLP techniques, tools and resources to a variety of requirements documents or artifacts to support a range of linguistic analysis tasks performed at various RE phases. Such tasks include detecting language issues, identifying key domain concepts and establishing traceability links between requirements. Objective: This article surveys the landscape of NLP4RE research to understand the state of the art and identify open problems. Method: The systematic mapping study approach is used to conduct this survey, which identified 404 relevant primary studies and reviewed them according to five research questions, cutting across five aspects of NLP4RE research, concerning the state of the literature, the state of empirical research, the research focus, the state of the practice, and the NLP technologies used.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting Politeness in Natural Language by Michael Yeomans, Alejandro Kantor, Dustin Tingley
    CONTRIBUTED RESEARCH ARTICLES 489 The politeness Package: Detecting Politeness in Natural Language by Michael Yeomans, Alejandro Kantor, Dustin Tingley Abstract This package provides tools to extract politeness markers in English natural language. It also allows researchers to easily visualize and quantify politeness between groups of documents. This package combines and extends prior research on the linguistic markers of politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil et al., 2013; Voigt et al., 2017). We demonstrate two applications for detecting politeness in natural language during consequential social interactions— distributive negotiations, and speed dating. Introduction Politeness is a universal dimension of human communication (Goffman, 1967; Lakoff, 1973; Brown and Levinson, 1987). In practically all settings, a speaker can choose to be more or less polite to their audience, and this can have consequences for the speakers’ social goals. Politeness is encoded in a discrete and rich set of linguistic markers that modify the information content of an utterance. Sometimes politeness is an act of commission (for example, saying “please” and “thank you”) <and sometimes it is an act of omission (for example, declining to be contradictory). Furthermore, the mapping of politeness markers often varies by culture, by context (work vs. family vs. friends), by a speaker’s characteristics (male vs. female), or the goals (buyer vs. seller). Many branches of social science might be interested in how (and when) people express politeness to one another, as one mechanism by which social co-ordination is achieved. The politeness package is designed to make it easier to detect politeness in English natural language, by quantifying relevant characteristics of polite speech, and comparing them to other data about the speaker.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Language Processing
    Natural Language Processing Liz Liddy (lead), Eduard Hovy, Jimmy Lin, John Prager, Dragomir Radev, Lucy Vanderwende, Ralph Weischedel This report is one of five reports that were based on the MINDS workshops, led by Donna Harman (NIST) and sponsored by Heather McCallum-Bayliss of the Disruptive Technology Office of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's Office of Science and Technology (ODNI/ADDNI/S&T/DTO). To find the rest of the reports, and an executive overview, please see http://www.itl.nist.gov/iaui/894.02/minds.html. Historic Paradigm Shifts or Shift-Enablers A series of discoveries and developments over the past years has resulted in major shifts in the discipline of Natural Language Processing. Some have been more influential than others, but each is recognizable today as having had major impact, although this might not have been seen at the time. Some have been shift-enablers, rather than actual shifts in methods or approaches, but these have caused as major a change in how the discipline accomplishes its work. Very early on in the emergence of the field of NLP, there were demonstrations that NLP could develop operational systems with real levels of linguistic processing, in truly end-to-end (although toy) systems. These included SHRDLU by Winograd (1971) and LUNAR by Woods (1970). Each could accomplish a specific task — manipulating blocks in the blocks world or answering questions about samples from the moon. They were able to accomplish their limited goals because they included all the levels of language processing in their interactions with humans, including morphological, lexical, syntactic, semantic, discourse and pragmatic.
    [Show full text]
  • “Linguistic Analysis” As a Misnomer, Or, Why Linguistics Is in a State of Permanent Crisis
    Alexander Kravchenko Russia, Baikal National University of Economics and Law, Irkutsk “Linguistic Analysis” as a Misnomer, or, Why Linguistics is in a State of Permanent Crisis Key words: methodology, written-language bias, biology of language, consensual domain, language function Ключевые слова: методология, письменноязыковая предвзятость, биология языка, консенсуальная область, функция языка Аннотация Показывается ошибочность общепринятого понятия лингвистического анализа как анализа естественного языка. Следствием соссюровского структурализма и фило- софии объективного реализма является взгляд на язык как на вещь (код) – систему знаков, используемых как инструмент для коммуникации, под которой понимается обмен информацией. При таком подходе анализ в традиционной лингвистике пред- ставляет собой анализ вещей – письменных слов, предложений, текстов; все они являются культурными артефактами и не принадлежат сфере естественного языка как видоспецифичного социального поведения, биологическая функция которого состоит в ориентировании себя и других в когнитивной области взаимодействий. До тех пор, пока наукой не будет отвергнута кодовая модель языка, лингвистический анализ будет продолжать обслуживать языковой миф, удерживая лингвистику в со- стоянии перманентного кризиса. 1. Th e problem with linguistics as a science There is a growing feeling of uneasiness in the global community of linguists about the current state of linguistics as a science. Despite a lot of academic activity in the fi eld, and massive research refl ected in the ever growing number of publications related to the study of the various aspects of language, there hasn’t been a major breakthrough in the explorations of language as a unique endowment of humans. 26 Alexander Kravchenko Numerous competing theoretical frameworks and approaches in linguistic re- search continue to obscure the obvious truth that there is very little understanding of language as a phenomenon which sets humans apart from all other known biological species.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Language Processing and Language Learning
    To appear 2012 in Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited by Carol A. Chapelle. Wiley Blackwell Natural Language Processing and Language Learning Detmar Meurers Universität Tübingen dm@sfs.uni-tuebingen.de As a relatively young field of research and development started by work on cryptanalysis and machine translation around 50 years ago, Natural Language Processing (NLP) is concerned with the automated processing of human language. It addresses the analysis and generation of written and spoken language, though speech processing is often regarded as a separate subfield. NLP emphasizes processing and applications and as such can be seen as the applied side of Computational Linguistics, the interdisciplinary field of research concerned with for- mal analysis and modeling of language and its applications at the intersection of Linguistics, Computer Science, and Psychology. In terms of the language aspects dealt with in NLP, traditionally lexical, morphological and syntactic aspects of language were at the center of attention, but aspects of meaning, discourse, and the relation to the extra-linguistic context have become increasingly prominent in the last decade. A good introduction and overview of the field is provided in Jurafsky & Martin (2009). This article explores the relevance and uses of NLP in the context of language learning, focusing on written language. As a concise characterization of this emergent subfield, the discussion will focus on motivating the relevance, characterizing the techniques, and delin- eating the uses of NLP; more historical background and discussion can be found in Nerbonne (2003) and Heift & Schulze (2007). One can distinguish two broad uses of NLP in this context: On the one hand, NLP can be used to analyze learner language, i.e., words, sentences, or texts produced by language learners.
    [Show full text]
  • LDL-2014 3Rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics
    3rd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics: Multilingual Knowledge Resources and Natural Language Processing Workshop Programme 08:30 - 09:00 – Opening and Introduction by Workshop Chair(s) 09:00 – 10:00 – Invited Talk Piek Vossen, The Collaborative Inter-Lingual-Index for harmonizing wordnets 10:00 – 10:30 – Session 1: Modeling Lexical-Semantic Resources with lemon Andon Tchechmedjiev, Gilles Sérasset, Jérôme Goulian and Didier Schwab, Attaching Translations to Proper Lexical Senses in DBnary 10:30 – 11:00 Coffee break 11:00-11:20– Session 1: Modeling Lexical-Semantic Resources with lemon John Philip McCrae, Christiane Fellbaum and Philipp Cimiano, Publishing and Linking WordNet using lemon and RDF 11:20-11:40– Session 1: Modeling Lexical-Semantic Resources with lemon Andrey Kutuzov and Maxim Ionov, Releasing genre keywords of Russian movie descriptions as Linguistic Linked Open Data: an experience report 11:40-12:00– Session 2: Metadata Matej Durco and Menzo Windhouwer, From CLARIN Component Metadata to Linked Open Data 12:00-12:20– Session 2: Metadata Gary Lefman, David Lewis and Felix Sasaki, A Brief Survey of Multimedia Annotation Localisation on the Web of Linked Data 12:20-12:50– Session 2: Metadata Daniel Jettka, Karim Kuropka, Cristina Vertan and Heike Zinsmeister, Towards a Linked Open Data Representation of a Grammar Terms Index 12:50-13:00 – Poster slam – Data Challenge 13:00 – 14:00 Lunch break 14:00 – 15:00 – Invited Talk Gerard de Mello, From Linked Data to Tightly Integrated Data 15:00 – 15:30 – Section 3: Crosslinguistic
    [Show full text]
  • A Joint Model of Language and Perception for Grounded Attribute Learning
    A Joint Model of Language and Perception for Grounded Attribute Learning Cynthia Matuszek cynthia@cs.washington.edu Nicholas FitzGerald nfitz@cs.washington.edu Luke Zettlemoyer lsz@cs.washington.edu Liefeng Bo lfb@cs.washington.edu Dieter Fox fox@cs.washington.edu Computer Science and Engineering, Box 352350, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2350 Abstract ical workspace that contains a number of objects that As robots become more ubiquitous and ca- vary in shape and color. We assume that a robot can pable, it becomes ever more important for understand sentences like this if it can solve the as- untrained users to easily interact with them. sociated grounded object selection task. Specifically, it Recently, this has led to study of the lan- must realize that words such as \yellow" and \blocks" guage grounding problem, where the goal refer to object attributes, and ground the meaning of is to extract representations of the mean- such words by mapping them to a perceptual system ings of natural language tied to the physi- that will enable it to identify the specific physical ob- cal world. We present an approach for joint jects referred to. To do so robustly, even in cases where learning of language and perception models words or attributes are new, our robot must learn (1) for grounded attribute induction. The per- visual classifiers that identify the appropriate object ception model includes classifiers for phys- properties, (2) representations of the meaning of indi- ical characteristics and a language model vidual words that incorporate these classifiers, and (3) based on a probabilistic categorial grammar a model of compositional semantics used to analyze that enables the construction of composi- complete sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • From Natural Language to Programming Language
    110 Chapter 4 From Natural Language to Programming Language Xiao Liu Pennsylvania State University, USA Dinghao Wu Pennsylvania State University, USA ABSTRACT Programming remains a dark art for beginners or even professional programmers. Experience indicates that one of the first barriers for learning a new programming language is the rigid and unnatural syntax and semantics. After analysis of research on the language features used by non-programmers in describing problem solving, the authors propose a new program synthesis framework, dialog-based programming, which interprets natural language descriptions into computer programs without forcing the input formats. In this chapter, they describe three case studies that demonstrate the functionalities of this program synthesis framework and show how natural language alleviates challenges for novice programmers to conduct software development, scripting, and verification. INTRODUCTION Programming languages are formal languages with precise instructions for different software development purposes such as software implementation and verification. Due to its conciseness, the absence of redundancy causes less ambiguity in describing problems but on the other hand, reduces the expressiveness. Since the early days of automatic computing, researchers have considered the shortcomings DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5969-6.ch004 Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. From Natural Language to Programming Language that programming requires to accommodate the precision with the adoption of formal symbolism (Myers, Pane, & Ko, 2004). They have been exploring techniques that could help untrained and lightly trained users to write programming code in a more natural way, and natural programming is then proposed (Biermann, 1983; Pollock, Vijay-Shanker, Hill, Sridhara, & Shepherd, 2013).
    [Show full text]