research-article

Free access

Learning context-dependent mappings from sentences to logical form

Authors:

Luke S. Zettlemoyer,

Michael CollinsAuthors Info & Claims

ACL '09: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP: Volume 2 - Volume 2

Pages 976 - 984

Published: 02 August 2009 Publication History

Abstract

We consider the problem of learning context-dependent mappings from sentences to logical form. The training examples are sequences of sentences annotated with lambda-calculus meaning representations. We develop an algorithm that maintains explicit, lambda-calculus representations of salient discourse entities and uses a context-dependent analysis pipeline to recover logical forms. The method uses a hidden-variable variant of the perception algorithm to learn a linear model used to select the best analysis. Experiments on context-dependent utterances from the ATIS corpus show that the method recovers fully correct logical forms with 83.7% accuracy.

References

[1]

Johan Bos, Stephen Clark, Mark Steedman, James R. Curran, and Julia Hockenmaier. 2004. Wide-coverage semantic representations from a CCG parser. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics.

Digital Library

[2]

Jaime G. Carbonell and Philip J. Hayes. 1983. Recovery strategies for parsing extragrammatical language. American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 9.

Digital Library

[3]

Stephen Clark and James R. Curran. 2003. Log-linear models for wide-coverage CCG parsing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.

Digital Library

[4]

Michael Collins. 2002. Discriminative training methods for hidden markov models: Theory and experiments with perceptron algorithms. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.

Digital Library

[5]

Deborah A. Dahl, Madeleine Bates, Michael Brown, William Fisher, Kate Hunicke-Smith, David Pallett, Christine Pao, Alexander Rudnicky, and Elizabeth Shriberg. 1994. Expanding the scope of the ATIS task: the ATIS-3 corpus. In ARPA HLT Workshop.

Digital Library

[6]

Ruifang Ge and Raymond J. Mooney. 2005. A statistical semantic parser that integrates syntax and semantics. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning.

Digital Library

[7]

Yulan He and Steve Young. 2006. Spoken language understanding using the hidden vector state model. Speech Communication, 48(3--4).

[8]

Mark Johnson, Stuart Geman, Steven Canon, Zhiyi Chi, and Stefan Riezler. 1999. Estimators for stochastic "unification-based" grammars. In Proc. of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

Digital Library

[9]

John Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning.

Digital Library

[10]

E. Levin, S. Narayanan, R. Pieraccini, K. Biatov, E. Bocchieri, G. Di Fabbrizio, W. Eckert, S. Lee, A. Pokrovsky, M. Rahim, P. Ruscitti, and M. Walker. 2000. The AT&T darpa communicator mixed-initiative spoken dialogue system. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing.

[11]

Scott Miller, David Stallard, Robert J. Bobrow, and Richard L. Schwartz. 1996. A fully statistical approach to natural language interfaces. In Proc. of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

Digital Library

[12]

K. A. Papineni, S. Roukos, and T. R. Ward. 1997. Feature-based language understanding. In Proceedings of European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology.

[13]

Ana-Maria Popescu, Alex Armanasu, Oren Etzioni, David Ko, and Alexander Yates. 2004. Modern natural language interfaces to databases: Composing statistical parsing with semantic tractability. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics.

Digital Library

[14]

Ganesh N. Ramaswamy and Jan Kleindienst. 2000. Hierarchical feature-based translation for scalable natural language understanding. In Proceedings of International Conference on Spoken Language Processing.

[15]

Stephanie Seneff. 1992. Robust parsing for spoken language systems. In Proc. of the IEEE Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[16]

Mark Steedman. 1996. Surface Structure and Interpretation. The MIT Press.

[17]

Mark Steedman. 2000. The Syntactic Process. The MIT Press.

Digital Library

[18]

Lappoon R. Tang and Raymond J. Mooney. 2000. Automated construction of database interfaces: Integrating statistical and relational learning for semantic parsing. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora.

Digital Library

[19]

Ben Taskar, Dan Klein, Michael Collins, Daphne Koller, and Christopher Manning. 2004. Maxmargin parsing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.

[20]

Wayne Ward and Sunil Issar. 1994. Recent improvements in the CMU spoken language understanding system. In Proceedings of the workshop on Human Language Technology.

Digital Library

[21]

Stephen Watkinson and Suresh Manandhar. 1999. Unsupervised lexical learning with categorial grammars using the LLL corpus. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Learning Language in Logic.

Digital Library

[22]

Yuk Wah Wong and Raymond Mooney. 2007. Learning synchronous grammars for semantic parsing with lambda calculus. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

[23]

John M. Zelle and Raymond J. Mooney. 1996. Learning to parse database queries using inductive logic programming. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

Digital Library

[24]

Luke S. Zettlemoyer and Michael Collins. 2005. Learning to map sentences to logical form: Structured classification with probabilistic categorial grammars. In Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence.

[25]

Luke S. Zettlemoyer and Michael Collins. 2007. Online learning of relaxed CCG grammars for parsing to logical form. In Proc. of the Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning.

Cited By

Guo DTang DDuan NZhou MYin J(2018)Dialog-to-actionProceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems10.5555/3327144.3327217(2946-2955)Online publication date: 3-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3327144.3327217
Wang PWu QShen CDick Avan den Hengel A(2018)FVQAIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence10.1109/TPAMI.2017.275424640:10(2413-2427)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TPAMI.2017.2754246
Srivastava SAzaria AMitchell T(2017)Parsing natural language conversations using contextual cuesProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3171837.3171857(4089-4095)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3171837.3171857
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Learning context-dependent mappings from sentences to logical form
1. Computing methodologies
2. Theory of computation
  1. Formal languages and automata theory
    1. Grammars and context-free languages

Recommendations

Learning to map sentences to logical form: structured classification with probabilistic categorial grammars
UAI'05: Proceedings of the Twenty-First Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence

This paper addresses the problem of mapping natural language sentences to lambda–calculus encodings of their meaning. We describe a learning algorithm that takes as input a training set of sentences labeled with expressions in the lambda calculus. The ...
Logical sentences as the intent of concepts

Pragmatics plays an important role in correctly understanding sentences. Much useful information will be lost if the context in which a sentence is asserted is ignored. There are some approaches in logic to pragmatics, such as situation theories and ...
A backtracking LR algorithm for parsing ambiguous context-dependent languages
CASCON '06: Proceedings of the 2006 conference of the Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative research

Parsing context-dependent computer languages requires an ability to maintain and query data structures while parsing for the purpose of influencing the parse. Parsing ambiguous computer languages requires an ability to generate a parser for arbitrary ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image DL Hosted proceedings

ACL '09: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP: Volume 2 - Volume 2

August 2009

595 pages

ISBN:9781932432466

General Chair:
Keh-Yih Su
Behavior Design Corp., Taiwan

Publisher

Association for Computational Linguistics

United States

Publication History

Published: 02 August 2009

Qualifiers

Research-article

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 85 of 443 submissions, 19%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

28
Total Citations
View Citations
644
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)70
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Guo DTang DDuan NZhou MYin J(2018)Dialog-to-actionProceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems10.5555/3327144.3327217(2946-2955)Online publication date: 3-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3327144.3327217
Wang PWu QShen CDick Avan den Hengel A(2018)FVQAIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence10.1109/TPAMI.2017.275424640:10(2413-2427)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TPAMI.2017.2754246
Srivastava SAzaria AMitchell T(2017)Parsing natural language conversations using contextual cuesProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3171837.3171857(4089-4095)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3171837.3171857
Zhang YHe SLiu KZhao J(2016)A joint model for question answering over multiple knowledge basesProceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3016100.3016335(3094-3100)Online publication date: 12-Feb-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3016100.3016335
Liang P(2016)Learning executable semantic parsers for natural language understandingCommunications of the ACM10.1145/286656859:9(68-76)Online publication date: 24-Aug-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2866568
Raza MGulwani SMilic-Frayling N(2015)Compositional program synthesis from natural language and examplesProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/2832249.2832359(792-800)Online publication date: 25-Jul-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2832249.2832359
Minkov E(2015)Event Extraction using Structured Learning and Rich Domain KnowledgeACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology10.1145/28011317:2(1-34)Online publication date: 4-Dec-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2801131
Baral CDzifcak J(2012)Solving puzzles described in english by automated translation to answer set programming and learning how to do that translationProceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning10.5555/3031843.3031913(573-577)Online publication date: 10-Jun-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3031843.3031913
Kennington CSchlangen DLee GGinzburg J(2012)Markov logic networks for situated incremental natural language understandingProceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue10.5555/2392800.2392854(314-323)Online publication date: 5-Jul-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2392800.2392854
Kim JMooney RTsujii JHenderson JPasca M(2012)Unsupervised PCFG induction for grounded language learning with highly ambiguous supervisionProceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning10.5555/2390948.2391001(433-444)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2390948.2391001
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents