File size: 73,312 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 | {
"paper_id": "P91-1017",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:03:26.387870Z"
},
"title": "Two Languages Are More Informative Than One *",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ido",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dagan",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "dagan@cs.technion.ac.il"
},
{
"first": "Alon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Itai",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Ulrike",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schwall",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "schwall@dhdibml"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "This paper presents a new approach for resolving lexical ambiguities in one language using statistical data on lexical relations in another language. This approach exploits the differences between mappings of words to senses in different languages. We concentrate on the problem of target word selection in machine translation, for which the approach is directly applicable, and employ a statistical model for the selection mechanism. The model was evaluated using two sets of Hebrew and German examples and was found to be very useful for disambiguation.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P91-1017",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "This paper presents a new approach for resolving lexical ambiguities in one language using statistical data on lexical relations in another language. This approach exploits the differences between mappings of words to senses in different languages. We concentrate on the problem of target word selection in machine translation, for which the approach is directly applicable, and employ a statistical model for the selection mechanism. The model was evaluated using two sets of Hebrew and German examples and was found to be very useful for disambiguation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The resolution of hxical ambiguities in non-restricted text is one of the most difficult tasks of natural language processing. A related task in machine translation is target word selection -the task of deciding which target language word is the most appropriate equivalent of a source language word in context. In addition to the alternatives introduced from the different word senses of the source language word, the target language may specify additional alternatives that differ mainly in their usages.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Traditionally various linguistic levels were used to deal with this problem: syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. Computationally the syntactic methods are the easiest, but are of no avail in the frequent situation when the different senses of the word show *This research was partially supported by grant number 120-741 of the Iarael Council for Research and Development the same syntactic behavior, having the same part of speech and even the same subcategorization frame. Substantial application of semantic or pragmatic knowledge about the word and its context for broad domains requires compiling huge amounts of knowledge, whose usefulness for practical applications has not yet been proven (Lenat et al., 1990; Nirenburg et al., 1988; Chodorow et al., 1985) . Moreover, such methods fail to reflect word usages.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 695,
"end": 715,
"text": "(Lenat et al., 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 716,
"end": 739,
"text": "Nirenburg et al., 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 740,
"end": 762,
"text": "Chodorow et al., 1985)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "It is known for many years that the use of a word in the language provides information about its meaning (Wittgenstein, 1953) . Also, statistical approaches which were popular few decades ago have recently reawakened and were found useful for computational linguistics. Consequently, a possible (though partial) alternative to using manually constructed knowledge can be found in the use of statistical data on the occurrence of lexical relations in large corpora. The use of such relations (mainly relations between verbs or nouns and their arguments and modifiers) for various purposes has received growing attention in recent research (Church and Hanks, 1990 ; Zernik and Jacobs, 1990 ; Hindle, 1990) . More specifically, two recent works have suggested to use statistical data on lexical relations for resolving ambiguity cases of PP-attachment (Hindle and Rooth, 1990 ) and pronoun references (Dagan and Itai, 1990a ; Dagan and Itai, 1990b) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 125,
"text": "(Wittgenstein, 1953)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 638,
"end": 661,
"text": "(Church and Hanks, 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 664,
"end": 687,
"text": "Zernik and Jacobs, 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 690,
"end": 703,
"text": "Hindle, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 849,
"end": 872,
"text": "(Hindle and Rooth, 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 898,
"end": 920,
"text": "(Dagan and Itai, 1990a",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 923,
"end": 945,
"text": "Dagan and Itai, 1990b)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Clearly, statistical methods can be useful also for target word selection. Consider, for example, the Hebrew sentence extracted from the foreign news section of the daily Haaretz, September 1990 (transcripted to Latin letters).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(1) Nose ze maria' mi-shtei ha-mdinot mi-lahtom 'al hoze shalom.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "This sentence would translate into English as:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(2) That issue prevented the two countries from signing a peace treaty.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The verb 'lab_tom' has four word senses: 'sign', 'seal', 'finish' and 'close'. Whereas the noun 'hose' means both 'contract' and 'treaty'. Here the difference is not in the meaning, but in usage.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "One possible solution is to consult a Hebrew corpus tagged with word senses, from which we would probably learn that the sense 'sign' of 'lahtom' appears more frequently with 'hoze' as its object than all the other senses. Thus we should prefer that sense. However, the size of corpora required to identify lexical relations in a broad domain is huge (tens of millions of words) and therefore it is usually not feasible to have such corpora manually tagged with word senses. The problem of choosing between 'treaty' and 'contract' cannot be solved using only information on Hebrew, because Hebrew does not distinguish between them.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The solution suggested in this paper is to identify the lexical relationships in corpora of the target language, instead of the source language. Consulting English corpora of 150 million words, yields the following statistics on single word frequencies: 'sign' appeared 28674 times, 'seal' 2771 times, 'finish' appeared 15595 times, 'close' 38291 times, 'treaty' 7331 times and 'contract' 30757 times. Using a naive approach of choosing the most frequent word yields",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(3) *That issue prevented the two countries from closing a peace contract.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "This may be improved upon if we use lexical relations. We consider word combinations and count how often they appeared in the same syntactic relation as in the ambiguous sentence. For the above example, among the successfully parsed sentences of the corpus, the noun compound 'peace treaty' appeared 49 times, whereas the compound 'peace contract' did not appear at all; 'to sign a treaty' appeared 79 times while none of the other three alternatives appeared more than twice. Thus we first prefer 'treaty' to 'contract' because of the noun compound 'peace treaty' and then proceed to prefer 'sign' since it appears most frequently having the object 'treaty' (the order of selection is explained in section 3). Thus in this case our method yielded the correct translation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Using this method, we take the point of view that some ambiguity problems are easier to solve at the level of the target language instead of the source language. The source language sentences are considered as a noisy source for target language sentences, and our task is to devise a target language model that prefers the most reasonable translation. Machine translation (MT) is thus viewed in part as a recognition problem, and the statistical model we use specifically for target word selection may be compared with other language models in recognition tasks (e.g. Katz (1985) for speech recognition). In contrast to this view, previous approaches in MT typically resolved examples like (1) by stating various constraints in terms of the source language (Nirenburg, 1987). As explained before, such constraints cannot be acquired automatically and therefore are usually limited in their coverage.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 568,
"end": 579,
"text": "Katz (1985)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The experiment conducted to test the statistical model clearly shows that the statistics on lexical relations are very useful for disambiguation. Most notable is the result for the set of examples for Hebrew to English translation, which was picked randomly from foreign news sections in Israeli press. For this set, the statistical model was applicable for 70% of the ambiguous words, and its selection was then correct for 92% of the cases.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "These results for target word selection in machine translation suggest to use a similar mechanism even if we are interested only in word sense disambiguation within a single language! In order to select the right sense of a word, in a broad coverage application, it is useful to identify lexical relations between word senses. However, within corpora of a single language it is possible to identify automatically only relations at the word level, which are of course not useful for selecting word senses in that language. This is where other languages can supply the solution, exploiting the fact that the mapping between words and word senses varies significantly among different languages. For instance, the English words 'sign' and 'seal' correspond to a very large extent to two distinct senses of the Hebrew word 'lab_tom' (from example (1)). These senses should be distinguished by most applications of Hebrew understanding programs. To make this distinction, it is possible to do the same process that is performed for target word selection, by producing all the English alternatives for the lexical relations involving 'lahtom'. Then the Hebrew sense which corresponds to the most plausible English lexical relations is preferred. This process requires a bilingual lexicon which maps each Hebrew sense separately into its possible translations, similar to a Hebrew-Hebrew-English lexicon (like the Oxford English-English-Hebrew dictionary (Hornby et al., 1980) ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1447,
"end": 1468,
"text": "(Hornby et al., 1980)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In some cases, different senses of a Hebrew word map to the same word also in English. In these cases, the lexical relations of each sense cannot be identified in an English corpus, and a third language is required to distinguish among these senses. As a long term vision, one can imagine a multilingual corpora based system, which exploits the differences between languages to automatically acquire knowledge about word senses. As explained above, this knowledge would be crucial for lexical disambiguation, and will also help to refine other types of knowledge acquired from large corpora 1 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The ambiguity of a word is determined by the number of distinct, non-equivalent representations into which the word can be mapped (Van Eynde et al., 1982) . In the case of machine translation the ambiguity of a source word is thus given by the number of target representations for that word in the bilingual lexicon of the translation system. Given a specific syntactic context the ambiguity can be reduced to the number of alternatives which may appear in that context. For instance, if a certain translation of a verb corresponds to an intransitive occurrence of that verb, then this possibility is eliminated when the verb occurs with a direct object. In this work we are interested only in those ambiguities that are left after applying all the deterministic syntactic constraints.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 154,
"text": "(Van Eynde et al., 1982)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Linguistic Model",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "For example, consider the following Hebrew sentence, taken from the daily Haaretz, September 1990:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Linguistic Model",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "(4) Diplomatim svurim ki hitztarrfuto shell Hon Sun magdila et ha.sikkuyim l-hassagat hitqaddmut ba-sihot.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Linguistic Model",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Here, the ambiguous words in translation to English are 'magdila', 'hitqaddmut' and 'sih_ot'. To facilitate the reading, we give the translation of the sentence to English, and in each case of an ambiguous selection all the alternatives are listed within curly brackets, the first alternative being the correct one.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Linguistic Model",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "1For inatanoe, Hindie (1990) indicates the need to distlnguhsh among aeaases of polysemic words for his statistical c]~Hic~tlon method.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Linguistic Model",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Sun { increases I enlarges I magnifies } the chances for achieving { progress [ advance I advancement } in the { talks I conversations I calls }.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(5) Diplomats believe that the joining of Hon",
"sec_num": "132"
},
{
"text": "We use the term a lezical relation to denote the cooccurrence relation of two (or possibly more) specific words in a sentence, having a certain syntactic relationship between them. Typical relations are between verbs and their subjects, objects, complements, adverbs and modifying prepositional phrases. Similarly, nouns are related also with their objects, with their modifying nouns in compounds and with their modifying adjectives and prepositional phrases.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(5) Diplomats believe that the joining of Hon",
"sec_num": "132"
},
{
"text": "The relational representation of a sentence is simply the list of all lexical relations that occur in the sentence. For our purpose, the relational representation contains only those relations that involve at least one ambiguous word. The relational representation for example (4) is given in (6) (for readability we represent the Hebrew word by its English equivalent, prefixed by 'H' to denote the fact that it is a Hebrew word): The relational representation of a source sentence is reflected also in its translation to a target sentence. In some cases the relational representation of the target sentence is completely equivalent to that of the source sentence, and can be achieved just by substituting the source words with target words. In other cases, the mapping between source and target relations is more complicated, as is the case for the following German example: Here, the original subject of the source sentence becomes the object in the target sentence. This kind of mapping usually influences the translation process and is therefore encoded in components of the translation program, either explicitly or implicitly, especially in transfer based systems. Our model assumes that such a mapping of source language relations to target language relations is possible, an assumption that is valid for many practical cases.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(5) Diplomats believe that the joining of Hon",
"sec_num": "132"
},
{
"text": "When applying the mapping of relations on one lexicai relation of the source sentence we get several alternatives for a target relation. For instance, applying the mapping to example (6-c) we get three alternatives for the relation in the target sentence: (8) (verb-obj: achieve progress) (verb-obj: achieve advance) (verb-obj: achieve advancement) For example (6-d) we get 9 alternatives, since both 'H-progress' and 'H-talks' have three alternative translations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(5) Diplomats believe that the joining of Hon",
"sec_num": "132"
},
{
"text": "In order to decide which alternative is the most probable, we count the frequencies of all the alternative target relations in very large corpora. For example (8) we got the counts 20, 5 and 1 respectively. Similarly, the target relation 'to increase chance' was counted 20 times, while the other alternatives were not observed at all. These counts are given as input to the statistical model described in the next section, which performs the actual target word selection.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 162,
"text": "(8)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(5) Diplomats believe that the joining of Hon",
"sec_num": "132"
},
{
"text": "Our selection algorithm is based on the following statistical model. Consider first a single relation. The linguistic model provides us with several alternatives as in example (8) . We assume that each alternative has a theoretical probability Pi to be appropriate for this case. We wish to select the alternative for which Pi is maximal, provided that it is significantly larger than the others.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 176,
"end": 179,
"text": "(8)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Statistical Model",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "We have decided to measure this significance by the odds ratio of the two most probable alternatives P = Pl/P2. However, we do not know the theoretical probabilities, therefore we get a bound for p using the frequencies of the alternatives in the corpus.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Statistical Model",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Let/3 i be the probabilities as observed in the corpus (101 = ni/n, where ni is the number of times that alternative i appeared in the corpus and n is the total number of times that all the alternatives for the relation appeared in the corpus).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Statistical Model",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "For mathematical convenience we bound In p instead of p. Assuming that samples of the alternative relations are distributed normally, we get the following bound with confidence 1 -a:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Statistical Model",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "where Z is the eonfidenee coefficient. We approximate the variance by the delta method (e.g. John- Therefore we get that with probability at least 1--or,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Statistical Model",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "We denote the right hand side (the bound) by",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "In _> In -Zl-a +",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In sentences with several relations, we consider the best two alternatives for each relation, and take the relation for which B,, is largest. If this Ba is less than a specified threshold then we do not choose between the alternatives. Otherwise, we choose the most frequent alternative to this relation and select the target words appearing in this alternative. We then eliminate all the other alternative translations for the selected words, and accordingly eliminate all the alternatives for the remaining relations which involve these translations. In addition we update the observed probabilities for the remaining relations, and consequently the remaining Ba's. This procedure is repeated until all target words have been determined or the maximal Ba is below the threshold.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "B~,(nl, n2).",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The actual parameters we have used so far were c~ = 0.05 and the bound for Bawas -0.5.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "B~,(nl, n2).",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To illustrate the selection algorithm, we give the details for example (6) . The highest bound for the odds ratio (Ba = 1.36) was received for the relation 'increase-chance', thus selecting the translation 'increase' for 'H-increase'. The second was Ba = 0.96, for 'achieve-progress'. This selected the translations 'achieve' and 'progress', while eliminating the other senses of 'H-progress' in the remaining relations. Then, for the relation 'progress-in-talks' we got Ba = 0.3, thus selecting the appropriate translation for 'H-talks'.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 74,
"text": "(6)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "B~,(nl, n2).",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "An experiment was conducted to test the performance of the statistical model in translation from Hebrew and German to English. Two sets of paragraphs were extracted randomly from current Hebrew and German press. The Hebrew set contained 10 paragraphs taken from foreign news sections, while the German set contained 12 paragraphs of text not restricted to a specific topic.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Experiment",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Within these paragraphs we have (manually) identified the target word selection ambiguities, using a bilingual dictionary. Some of the alternative translations in the dictionary were omitted if it was judged that they will not be considered by an actual component of a machine translation program. These cases included very rare or archaic translations (that would not be contained in an MT lexicon) and alternatives that could be eliminated using syntactic knowledge (as explained in section 2) 2 . For each of the remaining alternatives, it was judged if it can serve as an acceptable translation in the given context. This a priori judgment was used later to decide whether the selection of the automatic procedure is correct. As a result of this process, the Hebrew set contained 105 ambiguous words (which had at least one unacceptable translation) and the German set 54 ambiguous words. Now it was necessary to identify the lexical relations within each of the sentences. As explained before, this should be done using a source language parser, and then mapping the source relations to the target relations. At this stage of the research, we still do not have the necessary resources to perform the entire process automatically s, therefore we have approximated it by translating the sentences into English and extracting the lexical relations using the English Slot Grammar (ESG) parser (mc-2Due to some technicalities, we have also restricted the experiment to cases in which all the relevant translations of a word consists exactly one English word, which is the most frequent situaticm.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Experiment",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "awe are currently integrating this process within GSG (German Slot Gr~nmm') and LMT-GE (the Germs~a to English MT prototype).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Experiment",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Cord, 1989) 4. Using this parser we have classified the lexical relations to rather general classes of syntactic relations, based on the slot structure of ESG. The important syntactic relations used were between a verb and its arguments and modifiers (counting as one class all objects, indirect objects, complements and nouns in modifying prepositional phrases) and between a noun and its arguments and modifiers (counting as one class all noun objects, modifying nouns in compounds and nouns in modifying prepositional phrases). The success of using this general level of syntactic relations indicates that even a rough mapping of source to target language relations would be useful for the statistical model.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Experiment",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The statistics for the alternative English relations in each sentence were extracted from three corpora: The Washington Post articles (about 40 million words), Associated Press news wire (24 million) and the Hansard corpus of the proceedings of the Canadian Parliament (85 million words). The statistics were extracted only from sentences of up to 25 words (to facilitate parsing) which contained altogether about 55 million words. The lexical relations in the corpora were extracted by ESG, in the same way they were extracted for the English version of the example sentences (see Dagan and Itai (1990a) for a discussion on using an automatic parser for extracting lexical relations from a corpus, and for the technique of acquiring the statistics). The parser failed to produce any parse for about 35% of the sentences, which further reduced the actual size of the corpora which was used.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 582,
"end": 604,
"text": "Dagan and Itai (1990a)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Experiment",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Two measurements, applicability and precision, are used to evaluate the performance of the statistical model. The applicability denotes the proportion of cases for which the model performed a selection, i.e. those cases for which the bound Bapassed the threshold. The precision denotes the proportion of cases for which the model performed a correct selection out of all the applicable cases.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We compare the precision of the model to that of the \"word frequencies\" procedure, which always selects the most frequent target word. This naive \"straw-man\" is less sophisticated than other methods suggested in the literature but it is useful as a common benchmark (e.g. Sadler (1989)) since it can 4The parsing process was controlled manually to make sure that we do not get wrong relational representation of the exo amp]es due to parsing errors. be easily implemented. The success rate of the \"word frequencies\" procedure can serve as a measure for the degree of lexical ambiguity in a given set of examples, and thus different methods can be partly compared by their degree of success relative to this procedure.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Out of the 105 ambiguous Hebrew words, for 32 the bound Badid not pass the threshold (applicability of 70%). The remaining 73 examples were distributed according to the following Thus the precision of the statistical model was 75% (24/32), while relying just on word frequencies yields 53% (18/32). We attribute the lower success rate for the German examples to the fact that they were not restricted to topics that are well represented in the corpus.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Statistical analysis for the larger set of Hebrew examples shows that with 95% confidence our method succeeds in at least 86% of the applicable examples (using the parameters of the distribution of proportions). With the same confidence, our method improves the word frequency method by at least 18% (using confidence interval for the difference of proportions in multinomial distribution, where the four cells of the multinomial correspond to the four entries in the result table).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "In the examples that were treated correctly by our 5An a posteriorl observation showed that in three of the six errors the selection of the model was actually acceptable, and the a priori judgment of the hnman translator was too severe. For example, in one of these cases the statistics selected the expression 'to begin talks' while the human translator regarded this expression as incorrect and selected 'to start talks'. If we consider these cases as correct then there are only three selection errors, getting a 96% precision. method, such as the examples in the previous sections, the statistics succeeded to capture two major types of disambiguating data. In preferring 'signtreaty' upon 'seal-treaty', the statistics reflect the relevant semantic constraint. In preferring 'peacetreaty' upon 'peace-contract', the statistics reflect the hxical usage of 'treaty' in English which differs from the usage of 'h_oze' in Hebrew.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "A detailed analysis of the failures of the method is most important, as it both suggests possible improvements for the model and indicates its limitations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Failures and Possible Improvements",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "As described above, these failures include either the cases for which the method was not applicable (no selection) or the cases in which it made an incorrect selection. The following paragraphs list the various reasons for both types.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Failures and Possible Improvements",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Insufficient data. This was the reason for nearly all the cases of inapplicability. For instance, none of the alternative relations 'an investigator of corruption' (the correct one) or 'researcher of corruption' (the incorrect one) was observed in the parsed corpus. In this case it is possible to perform the correct selection if we used only statistics about the cooccurrences of 'corruption' with either 'investigator' or 'researcher', without looking for any syntactic relation (as in Church and Hanks (1990) ). The use of this statistic is a subject for further research, but our initial data suggests that it can substantially increase the applicability of the statistical method with just a little decrease in its precision.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 489,
"end": 512,
"text": "Church and Hanks (1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inapplicability",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "Another way to deal with the lack of statistical data for the specific words in question is to use statistics about similar words. This is the basis for Sadler's Analogical Semantics (1989) which has not yet proved effective. His results may be improved if more sophisticated techniques and larger corpora are used to establish similarity between words (such as in (Hindle, 1990) ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 365,
"end": 379,
"text": "(Hindle, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inapplicability",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "Conflicting data. In very few cases two alternatives were supported equally by the statistical data, thus preventing a selection. In such cases, both alternatives are valid at the independent level of the lexical relation, but may be inappropriate for the specific context. For instance, the two alternatives of 'to take a job' or 'to take a position' appeared in one of the examples, but since the general context concerned with the position of a prime minister only the latter was appropriate. In order to resolve such examples it may be useful to consider also cooccurrences of the ambiguous word with other words in the broader context. For instance, the word 'minister' seems to cooccur in the same context more frequently with 'position' than with 'job'.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inapplicability",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "In another example both alternatives were appropriate also for the specific context. This happened with the German verb 'werfen', which may be translated (among other options) as 'throw', 'cast' or 'score'. In our example 'werfen' appeared in the context of 'to throw/cast light' and these two correct alternatives had equal frequencies in the corpus ('score' was successfully eliminated). In such situations any selection between the alternatives will be appropriate and therefore any algorithm that handles conflicting data will work properly.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Inapplicability",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "Using the inappropriate relation. One of the examples contained the Hebrew word 'matzav', which two of its possible translations are 'state' and 'position'. The phrase which contained this word was: 'to put an end to the {state I position} of war ... '. The ambiguous word is involved in two syntactic relations, being a complement of 'put' and also modified by 'war'. The corresponding frequencies were: (9) verb-comp: put-position 320 verb-comp: put-state 18",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorrect Selection",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "noun-nob j: state-war 13 noun-nob j: position-war 2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorrect Selection",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "The bound of the odds ration (Ba) for the first relation was higher than for the second, and therefore this relation determined the translation as 'position'. However, the correct translation should be 'state', as determined by the second relation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorrect Selection",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "This example suggests that while ordering the involved relations (or using any other weighting mechanism) it may be necessary to give different weights to the different types of syntactic relations. For instance, it seems reasonable that the object of a noun should receive greater weight in selecting the noun's sense than the verb for which this noun serves as a complement.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Incorrect Selection",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "In another example, the Hebrew word 'qatann', which two of its meanings are 'small' and 'young', modified the word 'sikkuy', which means 'prospect' or 'chance'. In this context, the correct sense is necessarily 'small'. However, the relation that was observed in the corpus was 'young prospect', relating to the human sense of 'prospect' which appeared in sport articles (a promising young person). This borrowed sense of 'prospect' is necessarily inappropriate, since in Hebrew it is represented by the equivalent of 'hope' ('tiqva'), and not by 'sikkuy'.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confusing senses.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The reason for this problem is that after producing the possible target alternatives, our model ignores the source language input as it uses only a monolingual target corpus. This can be solved if we use an aligned bilingual corpus, as suggested by Sadler (1989) and Brown et al. (1990) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 249,
"end": 262,
"text": "Sadler (1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 286,
"text": "Brown et al. (1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confusing senses.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In such a corpus the occurrences of the relation 'young prospect' will be aligned to the corresponding occurrences of the Hebrew word 'tiqva', and will not be used when the Hebrew word 'sikkuy' is involved. Yet, it should be brought in mind that an aligned corpus is the result of manual translation, which can be viewed as a manual tagging of the words with their equivalent senses in the other language. This resource is much more expensive and less available than the untagged monolingual corpus, while it seems to be necessary only for relatively rare situations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confusing senses.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Lack of deep understanding. By their nature, statistical methods rely on large quantities of shallow information. Thus, they are doomed to fail when disambiguation can rely only on deep understanding of the text and no other surface cues are available. This happened in one of the Hebrew examples, where the two alternatives were either 'emigration law' or 'immigration law' (the Hebrew word 'hagira' is used for both subsenses). While the context indicated that the first alternative is correct, the statistics preferred the second alternative. It seems that such cases are quiet rare, but only further evaluation will show the extent to which deep understanding is really needed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confusing senses.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The method presented takes advantage of two linguistic phenomena: the different usage of words and word senses among different languages and the importance of lexical cooccurrences within syntactic relations. The experiment shows that these phenomena are indeed useful for practical disambiguation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "We suggest that the high precision received in the experiment relies on two characteristics of the am-biguity phenomena, namely the sparseness and redundancy of the disambiguating data. By sparseness we mean that within the large space of alternative interpretations produced by ambiguous utterances, only a small portion is commonly used. Therefore the chance of an inappropriate interpretation to be observed in the corpus (in other contexts) is low. Redundancy relates to the fact that different informants (such as different lexical relations or deep understanding) tend to support rather than contradict one another, and therefore the chance of picking a \"wrong\" informant is low.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "The examination of the failures suggests that future research may improve both the applicability and precision of the model. Our next goal is to handle inapplicable cases by using cooccurrence data regardless of syntactic relations and similarities between words. We expect that increasing the applicability will lead to some decrease in precision, similar to the tradeoff between recall and precision in information retrieval. Pursuing this tradeoff will improve the performance of the method and reveal its limitations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "We would like to thank Mori Rimon, Peter Brown, Ayala Cohen, Ulrike Rackow, Herb Leass and Hans Karlgren for their help and comments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": "8"
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "A statistical approach to language translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brown",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cocks",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Della Pietra",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Della Pietra",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jelinek",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Mercer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Rossin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "16",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "79--85",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brown, P., Cocks, J., Della Pietra, S., Della Pietra, V., Jelinek, F., Mercer, R.L. and Rossin P.S., A statistical approach to language transla- tion, Computational Linguistics, vol. 16(2), 79- 85 (1990).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Extracting Semantic Hierarchies from a Large On-Line Dictionary",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Chodorow",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Byrd",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Heidron",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Proc. of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "299--304",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chodorow, M. S., R. J. Byrd and G. E. Heidron, Extracting Semantic Hierarchies from a Large On-Line Dictionary. Proc. of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the ACL, 299-304 (1985).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Word association norms, mutual information, and Lexicography",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Church",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hanks",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "16",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "22--29",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Church, K. W., and Hanks, P., Word associa- tion norms, mutual information, and Lexicogra- phy, Computational Linguistics, vol. 16(1), 22- 29 (1990).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Automatic Acquisition of Constraints for the Resolution of Anaphora References and Syntactic Ambiguities",
"authors": [
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dagan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Itai",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dagan, I. and A. Itai, Automatic Acquisition of Constraints for the Resolution of Anaphora References and Syntactic Ambiguities, COLING 1990, Helsinki, Finland.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "A Statistical Filter for Resolving Pronoun References",
"authors": [
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dagan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Itai",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proc. of the 7th",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dagan, I. and A. Itai, A Statistical Filter for Resolving Pronoun References, Proc. of the 7th",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Vision",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Israeli",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sym",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Israeli Sym. on Artificial Intelligence and Com- puter Vision, 1990.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Noun Classification from Predicate-Argument Structures",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hindle",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proc. of the 28rd Annual Meeting of the ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hindle, D. Noun Classification from Predicate- Argument Structures, Proc. of the 28rd Annual Meeting of the ACL, (1990).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Structural Ambiguity and Lexical Relations, Proc. of the Speech and Natural Language Workshop, (DARPA)",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hindle",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rooth",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hindle D. and M. Rooth, Structural Ambiguity and Lexical Relations, Proc. of the Speech and Natural Language Workshop, (DARPA), June 1990.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Ozford Student's Dictionanary for Hebrew Speakers",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Hornby",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ruse",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Reif",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Levy",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hornby, A. S., C. Ruse, J. A. Reif and Y. Levy, Ozford Student's Dictionanary for He- brew Speakers, Kernerman Publishing Ltd, Lon- nie Kahn & Co. Ltd. (1986).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Multivariate Statistical Analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Wichern",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johnson, R. A. and D. W. Wichern, Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Prentice-Hall, 1982.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Recursive m-gram language model via a smoothing of Turing's formula, IBM Tech. Disclosure Bull",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Katz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Katz, S., Recursive m-gram language model via a smoothing of Turing's formula, IBM Tech. Dis- closure Bull., 1985.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Cyc: toward programs with common sense",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [
"B"
],
"last": "Lenat",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"V"
],
"last": "Guha",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pittman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pratt",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shepherd",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Comm. ACM",
"volume": "33",
"issue": "8",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lenat, D. B., R. V. Guha, K. Pittman, D. Pratt and M. Shepherd, Cyc: toward programs with common sense, Comm. ACM, vol. 33(8), 1990.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "A new version of slot grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Mccord",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Research Report RC 1~506, IBM Research Division",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "McCord, M. C., A new version of slot grammar, Research Report RC 1~506, IBM Research Di- vision, Yorktown Heights, NY, 1989.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sirenburg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sirenburg, S., (ed.), Machine Translation, Cam- bridge University Press (1987).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Acquisition of Very Large Knowledge Bases: Methodology, Tools and Applications",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nirenburg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Monarch",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kaufmann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nirenburg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carbonell",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Carnegie-Mellon",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nirenburg, S., I. Monarch, T. Kaufmann, I. Nirenburg and J. Carbonell. Acquisition of Very Large Knowledge Bases: Methodology, Tools and Applications, Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie-Mellon, CMU-CMT-88- 108, (1988).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Working with analogical semantics: disambiguation techniques in DLT",
"authors": [
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sadler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sadler, V., Working with analogical semantics: disambiguation techniques in DLT, Foris Publi- cations, 1989.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "The Task of Transfer vis-avis Analysis and Generation. Eurotra Final Report ET-10-B/NL",
"authors": [
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Eynde",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Van Eynde, F. et al.: The Task of Transfer vis-a- vis Analysis and Generation. Eurotra Final Re- port ET-10-B/NL, (1982).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Tagging for Learning: Collecting Thematic Relations from Corpus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "U",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zernik",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jacobs",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Proc. COLING",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Zernik U., and P. Jacobs, Tagging for Learn- ing: Collecting Thematic Relations from Cor- pus. Proc. COLING 1990.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "a. (subj-verb: H-joining H-increase) b. (verb-obj: H-increase H-chance) c. (verb-obj: H-achieve H-progress) d. (noun-pp: H-progress H-in H-talks)",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "Der Tisch gefaellt mir. --I like the table.",
"type_str": "figure"
}
}
}
} |