CS 182 Sections 103 - 104 slides created by: Eva Mok modified by jgm April 26, 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Computational language: week 10 Lexical Knowledge Representation concluded Syntax-based computational language Sentence structure: syntax Context free.
Advertisements

CS Morphological Parsing CS Parsing Taking a surface input and analyzing its components and underlying structure Morphological parsing:
Statistical Machine Translation Part II: Word Alignments and EM Alexander Fraser ICL, U. Heidelberg CIS, LMU München Statistical Machine Translation.
Statistical Machine Translation Part II – Word Alignments and EM Alex Fraser Institute for Natural Language Processing University of Stuttgart
Embodied Compositional Semantics Ellen Dodge
GRAMMAR & PARSING (Syntactic Analysis) NLP- WEEK 4.
PSY 369: Psycholinguistics Language Acquisition: Learning words, syntax, and more.
Ai in game programming it university of copenhagen Statistical Learning Methods Marco Loog.
Models of Grammar Learning CS 182 Lecture April 24, 2008.
NLP and Speech 2004 Feature Structures Feature Structures and Unification.
CSE111: Great Ideas in Computer Science Dr. Carl Alphonce 219 Bell Hall Office hours: M-F 11:00-11:
Topics in Cognition and Language: Theory, Data and Models *Perceptual scene analysis: extraction of meaning events, causality, intentionality, Theory of.
LEARNING FROM OBSERVATIONS Yılmaz KILIÇASLAN. Definition Learning takes place as the agent observes its interactions with the world and its own decision-making.
The Neural Basis of Thought and Language Final Review Session.
CS 182 Sections Eva Mok April 21, 2004.
A computational study of cross-situational techniques for learning word-to- meaning mappings Jeffrey Mark Siskind Presented by David Goss-Grubbs March.
The Neural Basis of Thought and Language Week 15 The End is near...
Embodied Models of Language Learning and Use Embodied language learning Nancy Chang UC Berkeley / International Computer Science Institute.
Models of Grammar Learning CS 182 Lecture April 26, 2007.
Constructing Grammar: a computational model of the acquisition of early constructions CS 182 Lecture April 25, 2006.
Grammar induction by Bayesian model averaging Guy Lebanon LARG meeting May 2001 Based on Andreas Stolcke’s thesis UC Berkeley 1994.
Designing clustering methods for ontology building: The Mo’K workbench Authors: Gilles Bisson, Claire Nédellec and Dolores Cañamero Presenter: Ovidiu Fortu.
تمرين شماره 1 درس NLP سيلابس درس NLP در دانشگاه هاي ديگر ___________________________ راحله مکي استاد درس: دکتر عبدالله زاده پاييز 85.
Second Language Acquisition and Real World Applications Alessandro Benati (Director of CAROLE, University of Greenwich, UK) Making.
Analyzing iterated learning Tom Griffiths Brown University Mike Kalish University of Louisiana.
Statistical Natural Language Processing. What is NLP?  Natural Language Processing (NLP), or Computational Linguistics, is concerned with theoretical.
Artificial Intelligence Research Centre Program Systems Institute Russian Academy of Science Pereslavl-Zalessky Russia.
Natural Language Understanding
Lecture 1, 7/21/2005Natural Language Processing1 CS60057 Speech &Natural Language Processing Autumn 2005 Lecture 1 21 July 2005.
1 CS546: Machine Learning and Natural Language Preparation to the Term Project: - Dependency Parsing - Dependency Representation for Semantic Role Labeling.
Ronan Collobert Jason Weston Leon Bottou Michael Karlen Koray Kavukcouglu Pavel Kuksa.
A Survey for Interspeech Xavier Anguera Information Retrieval-based Dynamic TimeWarping.
Embodied Machines The Grounding (binding) Problem –Real cognizers form multiple associations between concepts Affordances - how is an object interacted.
RCDL Conference, Petrozavodsk, Russia Context-Based Retrieval in Digital Libraries: Approach and Technological Framework Kurt Sandkuhl, Alexander Smirnov,
Discriminative Models for Spoken Language Understanding Ye-Yi Wang, Alex Acero Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington USA ICSLP 2006.
SEMANTIC ANALYSIS WAES3303
1 A Hierarchical Approach to Wrapper Induction Presentation by Tim Chartrand of A paper bypaper Ion Muslea, Steve Minton and Craig Knoblock.
Unsupervised Learning: Clustering Some material adapted from slides by Andrew Moore, CMU. Visit for
Introduction to Embodied Construction Grammar March 4, 2003 Ben Bergen
Linguistic Essentials
Artificial Intelligence Research Center Pereslavl-Zalessky, Russia Program Systems Institute, RAS.
CS 182 Sections slides created by Eva Mok modified by JGM March
PSY270 Michaela Porubanova. Language  a system of communication using sounds or symbols that enables us to express our feelings, thoughts, ideas, and.
1 Compiler Design (40-414)  Main Text Book: Compilers: Principles, Techniques & Tools, 2 nd ed., Aho, Lam, Sethi, and Ullman, 2007  Evaluation:  Midterm.
Artificial Intelligence: Natural Language
Supertagging CMSC Natural Language Processing January 31, 2006.
CS 4705 Lecture 17 Semantic Analysis: Robust Semantics.
Event-Based Extractive Summarization E. Filatova and V. Hatzivassiloglou Department of Computer Science Columbia University (ACL 2004)
Overview of Statistical NLP IR Group Meeting March 7, 2006.
PARSING David Kauchak CS159 – Fall Admin Assignment 3 Quiz #1  High: 36  Average: 33 (92%)  Median: 33.5 (93%)
Dependency Parsing Niranjan Balasubramanian March 24 th 2016 Credits: Many slides from: Michael Collins, Mausam, Chris Manning, COLNG 2014 Dependency Parsing.
The Neural Basis of Thought and Language Final Review Session.
The Neural Basis of Thought and Language Final Review Session.
slides derived from those of Eva Mok and Joe Makin March 21, 2007
The Neural Basis of Thought and Language Week 14.
CS 182 Sections Leon Barrett with slides inspired by Eva Mok and Joe Makin April 18, 2007.
The Neural Basis of Thought and Language Week 14.
CS182 Leon Barrett with slides inspired by Eva Mok and Joe Makin April 25, 2008.
CS 182 Sections slide credit to Eva Mok and Joe Makin Updated by Leon Barrett April 25, 2007.
Review course concepts
Korean version of GloVe Applying GloVe & word2vec model to Korean corpus speaker : 양희정 date :
Cognitive Language Processing for Rosie
slides derived from those of Eva Mok and Joe Makin March 21, 2007
Robust Semantics, Information Extraction, and Information Retrieval
Data Mining Lecture 11.
Cognitive Language Comprehension in Rosie
CS4705 Natural Language Processing
CSCI 5832 Natural Language Processing
David Kauchak CS159 – Spring 2019
Artificial Intelligence 2004 Speech & Natural Language Processing
Presentation transcript:

CS 182 Sections slides created by: Eva Mok modified by jgm April 26, 2006

Announcements a9 due Tuesday, May 2 nd, 11:59pm final paper due Tuesday May 9 th, 11:59pm final exam Tuesday May 9 th in class final review?

Schedule Last Week –Constructions, ECG –Models of language learning This Week –Embodied Construction Grammar learning –(Bayesian) psychological model of sentence processing Next Week –Applications –Wrap-Up

Quiz 1.How does the analyzer use the constructions to parse a sentence? 2.What is the process by which new constructions are learned from pairs? 3.What are ways to re-organize and consolidate the current grammar? 4.What metric is used to determine when to form a new construction?

Quiz 1.How does the analyzer use the constructions to parse a sentence? 2.What is the process by which new constructions are learned from pairs? 3.What are ways to re-organize and consolidate the current grammar? 4.What metric is used to determine when to form a new construction?

“you” you schema Addressee subcase of Human FORM (sound) MEANING (stuff) Analyzing “You Throw The Ball” “throw” throw schema Throw roles: thrower throwee “ball” ball schema Ball subcase of Object “block” block schema Block subcase of Object t1 before t2 t2 before t3 Thrower- Throw-Object t2.thrower ↔ t1 t2.throwee ↔ t3 “the” Addressee Throw thrower throwee Ball

I will get the cup the analyzer allows the skipping of unknown lexical items here is the SemSpec CauseMove1:CauseMove mover = {Cup1:Cup} direction = {Place2:Place} causer = {Entity4:Speaker} motion = Move1:Move mover = {Cup1:Cup} direction = Place2:Place agent = {Entity4:Speaker} patient = {Cup1:Cup} Referent2:Referent category = {Cup1:Cup} resolved-ref = {Cup1:Cup} Referent1:Referent category = {Entity4:Speaker} resolved-ref = {Entity4:Speaker} Remember that the transitive construction takes 3 constituents: agt : Ref-Expr v : Cause-Motion-Verb obj : Ref-Expr their meaning poles are: agt : Referent v : CauseMove obj : Referent

Another way to think of the SemSpec

Analyzer Chart Chart Entry 0: Transitive-Cn1 span: [0, 4] processed input: i bring cup Skipped: 1 3 semantic coherence: 0.56 I-Cn1 span: [0, 0] processed input: i Skipped: none semantic coherence: Chart Entry 2: Bring-Cn1 span: [2, 2] processed input: bring Skipped: none semantic coherence: Chart Entry 4: Cup-Cn1 span: [4, 4] processed input: cup Skipped: none semantic coherence:

Analyzing in ECG create a recognizer for each construction in the grammar for each level j (in ascending order) repeat for each recognizer r in j for each position p of utterance initiate r starting at p until the number of states in the chart doesn't change

Recognizer for the Transitive-Cn an example of a level-1 construction is Red-Ball-Cn each recognizer looks for its constituents in order (the ordering constraints on the constituents can be a partial ordering) agtvobj Igetcup level 0 level 2 level 1

Constructions (Utterance, Situation) 1.Learner passes input (Utterance + Situation) and current grammar to Analyzer. Analyze Semantic Specification, Constructional Analysis 2.Analyzer produces SemSpec and Constructional Analysis. 3.Learner updates grammar: Hypothesize a.Hypothesize new map. Reorganize b.Reorganize grammar (merge or compose). c.Reinforce (based on usage). Learning-Analysis Cycle (Chang, 2004)

Quiz 1.How does the analyzer use the constructions to parse a sentence? 2.What is the process by which new constructions are learned from pairs? 3.What are ways to re-organize and consolidate the current grammar? 4.What metric is used to determine when to form a new construction?

Acquisition Reorganize Hypothesize Production Utterance (Comm. Intent, Situation) Generate Constructions (Utterance, Situation) Analysis Comprehension Analyze Partial Usage-based Language Learning

Basic Learning Idea The learner’s current grammar produces a certain analysis for an input sentence The context contains richer information (e.g. bindings) that are unaccounted for in the analysis Find a way to account for these meaning relations (by looking for corresponding form relations) SemSpec r1 r2 r1 r2 r3 r1 r2 Context r1 r2 r1 r2 r3 r1 r2

“you” “throw” “ball” you throw ball “block” block schema Addressee subcase of Human FORM (sound) MEANING (stuff) lexical constructions Initial Single-Word Stage schema Throw roles: thrower throwee schema Ball subcase of Object schema Block subcase of Object

“you” you schema Addressee subcase of Human FORMMEANING New Data: “You Throw The Ball” “throw” throw schema Throw roles: thrower throwee “ball” ball schema Ball subcase of Object “block” block schema Block subcase of Object “the” Addressee Throw thrower throwee Ball Self SITUATION Addressee Throw thrower throwee Ball before role-filler throw-ball

Relational Mapping Scenarios AfAf BfBf AmAm BmBm A B form- relation role- filler throw ball throw.throwee ↔ ball AfAf BfBf AmAm BmBm A B form- relation role- filler X put ball down put.mover ↔ ball down.tr ↔ ball AfAf BfBf AmAm BmBm A B form- relation role- filler Y Nomi ball possession.possessor ↔ Nomi possession.possessed ↔ ball

Quiz 1.How does the analyzer use the constructions to parse a sentence? 2.What is the process by which new constructions are learned from pairs? 3.What are ways to re-organize and consolidate the current grammar? 4.What metric is used to determine when to form a new construction?

Merging Similar Constructions throw before block Throw.throwee = Block throw before ball Throw.throwee = Ball throw before-s ing Throw.aspect = ongoing throw-ing the ball throw the block throw before Object f THROW.throwee = Object m THROW- OBJECT

Resulting Construction construction THROW-OBJECT constructional constituents t : THROW o : OBJECT form t f before o f meaning t m.throwee ↔ o m

Composing Co-occurring Constructions ball before off Motion m m.mover = Ball m.path = Off ball off throw before ball Throw.throwee = Ball throw the ball throw before ball ball before off THROW.throwee = Ball Motion m m.mover = Ball m.path = Off THROW- BALL- OFF

Resulting Construction construction THROW-BALL-OFF constructional constituents t : THROW b : BALL o : OFF form t f before b f b f before o f meaning evokes MOTION as m t m.throwee ↔ b m m.mover ↔ b m m.path ↔ o m

Quiz 1.How does the analyzer use the constructions to parse a sentence? 2.What is the process by which new constructions are learned from pairs? 3.What are ways to re-organize and consolidate the current grammar? 4.What metric is used to determine when to form a new construction?

Minimum Description Length Choose grammar G to minimize cost(G|D): –cost(G|D) = α size(G) + β complexity(D|G) –Approximates Bayesian learning; cost(G|D) ≈ 1/posterior probability ≈ 1/P(G|D) Size of grammar = size(G) ≈ 1/prior ≈ 1/P(G) –favor fewer/smaller constructions/roles; isomorphic mappings Complexity of data given grammar ≈ 1/likelihood ≈ 1/P(D|G) –favor simpler analyses (fewer, more likely constructions) –based on derivation length + score of derivation

Size Of Grammar Size of the grammar G is the sum of the size of each construction: Size of each construction c is: where n c = number of constituents in c, m c = number of constraints in c, length(e) = slot chain length of element reference e

Example: The Throw-Ball Cxn construction THROW-BALL constructional constituents t : THROW b : BALL form t f before b f meaning t m.throwee ↔ b m size ( THROW-BALL ) = (2 + 3) = 9

Complexity of Data Given Grammar Complexity of the data D given grammar G is the sum of the analysis score of each input token d: Analysis score of each input token d is: where c is a construction used in the analysis of d weight c ≈ relative frequency of c, |type r | = number of ontology items of type r used, height d = height of the derivation graph, semfit d = semantic fit provide by the analyzer

Final Remark The goal here is to build a cognitive plausible model of language learning A very different game that one could play is unsupervised / semi-supervised language learning using shallow or no semantics –statistical NLP –automatic extraction of syntactic structure –automatic labeling of frame elements Fairly reasonable results for use in tasks such as information retrieval, but the semantic representation is very shallow