DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding Differences in Perceived Peer-Review Helpfulness Using Natural Language Processing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding Differences in Perceived Peer-Review Helpfulness Using Natural Language Processing Understanding Differences in Perceived Peer-Review Helpfulness using Natural Language Processing Wenting Xiong Diane Litman University of Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science & Pittsburgh, PA, 15260 Learning Research and Development Center [email protected] Pittsburgh, PA, 15260 [email protected] Abstract ically predict peer-review helpfulness based on fea- tures mined from textual reviews using Natural Lan- Identifying peer-review helpfulness is an im- guage Processing (NLP) techniques. Such an intel- portant task for improving the quality of feed- ligent component could enable peer-review systems back received by students, as well as for help- to 1) control the quality of peer reviews that are sent ing students write better reviews. As we tailor back to authors, so authors can focus on the help- standard product review analysis techniques to our peer-review domain, we notice that peer- ful ones; and 2) provide feedback to reviewers with review helpfulness differs not only between respect to their reviewing performance, so students students and experts but also between types can learn to write better reviews. of experts. In this paper, we investigate how In our prior work (Xiong and Litman, 2011), we different types of perceived helpfulness might examined whether techniques used for predicting the influence the utility of features for automatic helpfulness of product reviews (Kim et al., 2006) prediction. Our feature selection results show could be tailored to our peer-review domain, where that certain low-level linguistic features are the definition of helpfulness is largely influenced by more useful for predicting student perceived helpfulness, while high-level cognitive con- the educational context of peer review. While previ- structs are more effective in modeling experts’ ously we used the average of two expert-provided perceived helpfulness. ratings as our gold standard of peer-review help- fulness1, there are other types of helpfulness rating (e.g. author perceived helpfulness) that could be the 1 Introduction gold standard, and that could potentially impact the Peer review of writing is a commonly recommended features used to build the helpfulness model. In fact, technique to include in good writing instruction. It we observe that peer-review helpfulness seems to not only provides more feedback compared to what differ not only between students and experts (exam- students might get from their instructors, but also ple 1), but also between types of experts (example provides opportunities for students to practice writ- 2). ing helpful reviews. While existing web-based peer- In the following examples, students judge helpful- review systems facilitate peer review from the logis- ness with discrete ratings from one to seven; experts tic aspect (e.g. collecting papers from authors, as- judge it using a one to five scale. Higher ratings on signing reviewers, and sending reviews back), there both scales correspond to the most helpful reviews. still remains the problem that the quality of peer Example 1: reviews varies, and potentially good feedback is not written in a helpful way. To address this is- Student rating = 7, Average expert rating = 2 The sue, we propose to add a peer-review helpfulness 1Averaged ratings are considered more reliable since they model to current peer-review systems, to automat- are less noisy. 10 Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pages 10–19, Portland, Oregon, 24 June 2011. c 2011 Association for Computational Linguistics author also has great logic in this paper. How can 2 Related Work we consider the United States a great democracy when everyone is not treated equal. All of the main To our knowledge, no prior work on peer review points were indeed supported in this piece. from the NLP community has attempted to auto- matically predict peer-review helpfulness. Instead, Student rating = 3, Average expert rating = 5 I the NLP community has focused on issues such as thought there were some good opportunities to highlighting key sentences in papers (Sandor and provide further data to strengthen your argument. For example the statement “These methods of Vorndran, 2009), detecting important feedback fea- intimidation, and the lack of military force offered tures in reviews (Cho, 2008; Xiong and Litman, by the government to stop the KKK, led to the 2010), and adapting peer-review assignment (Gar- rescinding of African American democracy.” cia, 2010). However, many NLP studies have been Maybe here include data about how . (126 words) done on the helpfulness of other types of reviews, such as product reviews (Kim et al., 2006; Ghose Example 2: and Ipeirotis, 2010), movie reviews (Liu et al., 2008), book reviews (Tsur and Rappoport, 2009), Writing-expert rating = 2, Content-expert rating = 5 etc. Kim et al. (2006) used regression to predict the Your over all arguements were organized in some helpfulness ranking of product reviews based on var- order but was unclear due to the lack of thesis in ious classes of linguistic features. Ghose and Ipeiro- the paper. Inside each arguement, there was no order to the ideas presented, they went back and tis (2010) further examined the socio-economic im- forth between ideas. There was good support to pact of product reviews using a similar approach the arguements but yet some of it didnt not fit your and suggested the usefulness of subjectivity analy- arguement. sis. Another study (Liu et al., 2008) of movie re- views showed that helpfulness depends on review- Writing-expert rating = 5, Content-expert rating = 2 ers’ expertise, their writing style, and the timeliness First off, it seems that you have difficulty writing of the review. Tsur and Rappoport (2009) proposed transitions between paragraphs. It seems that you RevRank to select the most helpful book reviews in end your paragraphs with the main idea of each an unsupervised fashion based on review lexicons. paragraph. That being said, . (173 words) As a final comment, try to continually move your paper, To tailor the utility of this prior work on help- that is, have in your mind a logical flow with every fulness prediction to educational peer reviews, we paragraph having a purpose. will draw upon research on peer review in cognitive science. One empirical study of the nature of peer- To better understand such differences and inves- review feedback (Nelson and Schunn, 2009) found tigate their impact on automatically assessing peer- that feedback implementation likelihood is signif- review helpfulness, in this paper, we compare help- icantly correlated with five feedback features. Of fulness predictions using our many different pos- these features, problem localization —pinpointing sibilities for gold standard ratings. In particular, the source of the problem and/or solution in the orig- we compare the predictive ability of features across inal paper— and solution —providing a solution to gold standard ratings by examining the most use- the observed problem— were found to be most im- ful features and feature ranks using standard feature portant. Researchers (Cho, 2008; Xiong and Lit- selection techniques. We show that paper ratings man, 2010) have already shown that some of these and lexicon categories that suggest clear transitions constructs can be automatically learned from tex- and opinions are most useful in predicting helpful- tual input using Machine Learning and NLP tech- ness as perceived by students, while review length niques. In addition to investigating what proper- is generally effective in predicting expert helpful- ties of textual comments make peer-review helpful, ness. While the presence of praise and summary researchers also examined how the comments pro- comments are more effective in modeling writing- duced by students versus by different types of ex- expert helpfulness, providing solutions is more use- perts differ (Patchan et al., 2009). Though focusing ful in predicting content-expert helpfulness. on differences between what students and experts 11 produce, such work sheds light on our study of stu- ing expert and one content expert were also asked to dents’ and experts’ helpfulness ratings of the same rate review helpfulness with a slightly different scale student comments (i.e. what students and experts from one to five. For our study, we will also com- value). pute the average ratings given by the two experts, Our work in peer-review helpfulness prediction yielding four types of possible gold-standard ratings integrates the NLP techniques and cognitive-science of peer-review helpfulness for each review. Figure 1 approaches mentioned above. We will particularly shows the rating distribution of each type. Interest- focus on examining the utility of features motivated ingly, we observed that expert ratings roughly follow by related work from both areas, with respect to dif- a normal distribution, while students are more likely ferent types of gold standard ratings of peer-review to give higher ratings (as illustrated in Figure 1). helpfulness for automatic prediction. 4 Features 3 Data Our features are motivated by the prior work in- In this study, we use a previously annotated peer- troduced in Section 2, in particular, NLP work on review corpus (Nelson and Schunn, 2009; Patchan predicting product-review helpfulness (Kim et al., et al., 2009) that was collected in an introduc- 2006), as well as work on automatically learning tory college history class using the freely available cognitive-science constructs (Nelson and Schunn, web-based peer-review SWoRD (Scaffolded Writ- 2009) using NLP (Cho, 2008; Xiong and Litman, ing and Rewriting in the Discipline) system (Cho 2010). The complete list of features is shown in Ta- and Schunn, 2007). The corpus consists of 16 pa- ble 3 and described below. The computational lin- pers (about six pages each) and 189 reviews (vary- guistic features are automatically extracted based ing from twenty words to about two hundred words) on the output of syntactic analysis of reviews and accompanied by numeric ratings of the papers.
Load more

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, [email protected] Waad Alhoshan Department of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, [email protected] Alessio Ferrari Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione "A. Faedo" (CNR-ISTI), Pisa, Italy, [email protected] Keletso J. Letsholo Faculty of Computer Information Science, Higher Colleges of Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, [email protected] Muideen A. Ajagbe Department of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, [email protected] Erol-Valeriu Chioasca Exgence Ltd., CORE, Manchester, United Kingdom, [email protected] Riza T. Batista-Navarro Department of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, [email protected] † 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] Nicholas FitzGerald [email protected] Luke Zettlemoyer [email protected] Liefeng Bo [email protected] Dieter Fox [email protected] 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]