Embodiments of the present invention relate generally to natural language generation technologies and, more particularly, relate to a method, apparatus, and computer program product for expressing spatial descriptions in an output text.
In some examples, a natural language generation (NLG) system is configured to transform raw input data that is expressed in a non-linguistic format into a format that can be expressed linguistically, such as through the use of natural language. For example, raw input data may take the form of a value of a stock market index over time and, as such, the raw input data may include data that is suggestive of a time, a duration, a value and/or the like. Therefore, an NLG system may be configured to input the raw input data and output text that linguistically describes the value of the stock market index; for example, “Securities markets rose steadily through most of the morning, before sliding downhill late in the day.” In some cases, an NLG system may further be configured to generate an output text in conjunction with other modalities, such as an annotated graph, an image, speech or the like.
Data that is input into a NLG system may be provided in, for example, a recurrent formal structure. The recurrent formal structure may comprise a plurality of individual fields and defined relationships between the plurality of individual fields. For example, the input data may be contained in a spreadsheet or database, presented in a tabulated log message or other defined structure, encoded in a ‘knowledge representation’ such as the resource description framework (RDF) triples that make up the Semantic Web and/or the like. In some examples, the data may include numerical content, symbolic content or the like. Symbolic content may include, but is not limited to, alphanumeric and other non-numeric character sequences in any character encoding, used to represent arbitrary elements of information. Other non-recurrent or unstructured data may be input into an NLG in some examples. In some examples, the output of the NLG system is text in a natural language (e.g. English, Japanese or Swahili), but may also be in the form of synthesized speech.
Methods, apparatuses, and computer program products are described herein that are configured to linguistically describe a spatial area in an output text generated by a natural language generation system. In some example embodiments, a method is provided that comprises generating one or more descriptors and/or one or more combinations of descriptors that are configured to linguistically describe at least a portion of a set of points within a spatial area. The method of this embodiment may also include scoring each of the one or more descriptors and/or one or more combinations of the one or more descriptors. The method of this embodiment may also include selecting a descriptor or combination of descriptors that has the highest score when compared to other descriptors or combination of descriptors, providing the descriptor or combination of descriptors satisfies a threshold.
Having thus described embodiments of the invention in general terms, reference will now be made to the accompanying drawings, which are not necessarily drawn to scale, and wherein:
Example embodiments will now be described more fully hereinafter with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which some, but not all, embodiments are shown. Indeed, the embodiments may take many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein; rather, these embodiments are provided so that this disclosure will satisfy applicable legal requirements. Like reference numerals refer to like elements throughout. The terms “data,” “content,” “information,” and similar terms may be used interchangeably, according to some example embodiments, to refer to data capable of being transmitted, received, operated on, and/or stored. Moreover, the term “exemplary”, as may be used herein, is not provided to convey any qualitative assessment, but instead merely to convey an illustration of an example. Thus, use of any such terms should not be taken to limit the spirit and scope of embodiments of the present invention.
In some examples, an NLG system may be configured to generate spatial descriptions referring to the location of one or more of an event (e.g. a location of an accident, a parade, and/or the like), an occurrence (e.g. presence of rain, population density numbers and/or the like), an object (e.g. a person, an item and/or the like), a pattern (e.g. traffic patterns and/or the like), and/or the like in a data set. In some examples, one or more of the event, the occurrence, the object, the pattern, or the like may be spatially contiguous or spatially non-contiguous in the spatial area described by the data set and may further be described at a particular time instant or over a period of time instances. For example, a descriptor may be used to identify a person “on the right” side” of a spatial area “at 10:00 am”, a rise in crime “in North Chicago over the last ten years”, an increase in population “from the last census in many parts of the U.S. south east” and/or the like.
The one or more of the event, the occurrence, the object, the pattern, or the like are generally input in the form of a set of points indicative of a location in a spatial area that are extracted from a raw data input. The spatial data may be indicative of a geographic location (e.g. as in a geographic information system), a relative position, a location in a multi-dimensional frame of reference and/or the like.
According to some example embodiments, a method, apparatus and computer program product, as described herein, is configured to determine at least one partition for describing the spatial area that includes the set of points that are representative of events, occurrences, objects, patterns, and/or the like in a data set. A partition is a means of segmenting a spatial area in a particular domain (e.g. using cardinal directions, altitudes or the like in geography, directions or points of interest in a two dimensional image and/or the like). In some examples, the partition may be used to model the spatial area. The elements of a partition may overlap with the elements of other partitions that are defined, but, in some examples, each of the partitions is configured to cover the entire spatial area. For example, areas based on cardinal directions, altitudes and/or the like can be used to exhaustively describe a geographic spatial area.
One or more descriptors may then be selected to linguistically describe the events, occurrences, objects, patterns, points and/or the like. A descriptor is the linguistically describable name of an element within a partition (e.g. based on the cardinal directions of north, east, south and west, directions or regions such as the left side or the right side and/or the like). As is described herein, descriptors from multiple partitions may be combined to describe the events, occurrences, objects and/or the like (e.g. “regions of Northern Scotland above 200 meters”).
In some example embodiments, a brute force approach may be used to determine which descriptors within the one or more partitions are to be selected and/or combined to describe the set of points in the data that provide spatial information tied to events, occurrences, objects and/or the like. In such a case, each potential descriptor or combination of descriptors (e.g. starting with a single descriptor then pairs of descriptors, etc.) are scored to determine how successfully the particular descriptor or combination of descriptors describes the set of points. The success of describing the set of points may be based on or otherwise judged in relation to the number of false positives and/or false negatives that arise. A false positive is a point within the spatial area that is denoted by the one or more descriptors but does not contain the event, occurrence, object and/or the like to be described (e.g. a point or set of points within the spatial area that do not contain rain, but are indicated as containing rain based on the one or more descriptors chosen). False negatives are points in which the event, occurrence, object and/or the like to be described does occur but the description does not denote (e.g. a point or set of points that do contain rain, but are indicated as not containing rain based on the one or more descriptors chosen). Alternatively or additionally, scoring may also be accomplished based on simplicity, coherence, external constraints, the domain and/or the like.
As such, the descriptor or combination of descriptors that have the highest score is chosen to describe the set of points in the spatial area. In some examples, the score of a chosen descriptor or combination of descriptors may be required to satisfy a predetermined threshold and/or satisfy one or more constraints prior to being selected. The descriptor or combination of descriptors may then be used by the NLG system to linguistically describe the one or more points in the spatial area.
For example, and with reference to a weather domain, in order to generate a weather forecast, weather data (e.g. weather prediction model data, rain fall sensors and/or the like) may define a set of points within a spatial area that indicate the presence of a particular weather event. Based on the set of points that indicate the presence of the particular weather event, one or more descriptors of one or more partitions may be used, such as a partition of a city based on cardinal direction (e.g. “the south side” of a city), neighborhood boundaries (e.g. “rain in the Bronx”), major thoroughfares (e.g. “east of I-95”) and/or the like, that can be linguistically described and are readily understood by the general public. For example an output text may include “A band of precipitation, moving from east to west, contains moisture that may fall as snow in areas having an altitude of 400 meters or greater that are west of Aberdeen.” A descriptor or combination of descriptors, may, in some examples, describe as much as possible of the spatial area in which the event occurs, while avoiding describing a spatial area in which the event does not occur.
A message store 110 or knowledge pool is configured to store one or more messages that are accessible by the natural language generation system 102. Messages are language independent data structures that correspond to informational elements in a text and/or collect together underlying data, referred to as slots, arguments or features, which can be presented within a fragment of natural language such as a phrase or sentence. Messages may be represented in various ways; for example, each slot may consist of a named attribute and its corresponding value; these values may recursively consist of sets of named attributes and their values, and each message may belong to one of a set of predefined types. The concepts and relationships that make up messages may be drawn from an ontology (e.g. a domain model 112) that formally represents knowledge about the application scenario. In some examples, the domain model 112 is a representation of information about a particular domain. For example, a domain model may contain an ontology that specifies the kinds of objects, instances, concepts and/or the like that may exist in the domain in concrete or abstract form, properties that may be predicated of the objects, concepts and the like, relationships that may hold between the objects, concepts and the like, and representations of any specific knowledge that is required to function in the particular domain.
In some examples, messages are created based on a requirements analysis as to what is to be communicated for a particular scenario (e.g. for a particular domain or genre). A message typically corresponds to a fact about the underlying data (for example, the existence of some observed event) that could be expressed via a simple sentence (although it may ultimately be realized by some other linguistic means). For example, to linguistically describe a weather event, such as a rain storm, a user may want to know the spatial location of the rain storm, when it will reach the user's location, the last time or location rain was detected and/or the like. In some cases, the user may not want to know about a weather event, but instead want to be warned in an instance in which the weather presents a danger in a particular area; for example: “High winds predicted this evening.”
In some examples, a message is created in an instance in which the raw input data warrants the construction of such a message. For example, a wind message would only be constructed in an instance in which wind data was present in the raw input data. Alternatively or additionally, while some messages may correspond directly to observations taken from a raw data input, others, however, may be derived from the observations by means of a process of inference or based on one or more detected events. For example, the presence of rain may be indicative of other conditions, such as the potential for snow at some temperatures.
Messages may be instantiated based on many variations of source data, such as, but not limited to, time series data, time and space data, data from multiple data channels, an ontology, sentence or phrase extraction from one or more texts, a text, survey responses, structured data, unstructured data and/or the like. For example, in some cases, messages may be generated based on text related to multiple news articles focused on the same or similar news story in order to generate a news story; whereas, in other examples, messages may be built based on survey responses and/or event data.
Messages may be annotated with an indication of their relative importance; this information can be used in subsequent processing steps or by the natural language generation system 102 to make decisions about which information may be conveyed and which information may be suppressed. Alternatively or additionally, messages may include information on relationships between the one or more messages.
In some example embodiments, a natural language generation system, such as natural language generation system 102, is configured to generate words, phrases, sentences, text or the like which may take the form of a natural language text. The natural language generation system 102 comprises a document planner 130, a microplanner 132 and/or a realizer 134. The natural language generation system 102 may also be in data communication with the message store 110, the domain model 112 and/or the linguistic resources 114. In some examples, the linguistic resources 114 include, but are not limited to, text schemas, communication context, aggregation rules, reference rules, lexicalization rules and/or grammar rules that may be used by one or more of the document planner 130, the microplanner 132 and/or the realizer 134. Other natural language generation systems may be used in some example embodiments, such as a natural language generation system as described in Building Natural Language Generation Systems by Ehud Reiter and Robert Dale, Cambridge University Press (2000), which is incorporated by reference in its entirety herein.
The document planner 130 is configured to input the one or more messages from the message store 110 and to determine how to arrange those messages in order to describe one or more patterns in the one or more data channels derived from the raw input data. The document planner 130 may also comprise a content determination process that is configured to select the messages, such as the messages that contain a representation of the data that is to be output via a natural language text.
The document planner 130 may also comprise a structuring process that determines the order of messages to be included in a text. In some example embodiments, the document planner 130 may access one or more text schemas for the purposes of content determination and document structuring. A text schema is a rule set that defines the order in which a number of messages are to be presented in a document. For example, a rain message may be described prior to a temperature message. In other examples, a wind message may be described after, but in a specific relation to, the rain message.
The output of the document planner 130 may be a tree-structured object or other data structure that is referred to as a document plan. In an instance in which a tree-structured object is chosen for the document plan, the leaf nodes of the tree may contain the messages, and the intermediate nodes of the tree structure object may be configured to indicate how the subordinate nodes are related (e.g. elaboration, consequence, contrast, sequence and/or the like) to each other.
The microplanner 132 is configured to construct a text specification based on the document plan from the document planner 130, such that the document plan may be expressed in natural language. In some example embodiments, the microplanner 132 may convert the one or more messages in the document plan into one or more phrase specifications in a text specification. In some example embodiments, the microplanner 132 may perform aggregation, lexicalization and referring expression generation.
In some examples, aggregation includes, but is not limited to, determining whether two or more messages can be combined together linguistically to produce a more complex phrase specification. For example, one or more messages may be aggregated so that both of the messages can be described by a single sentence. In some examples, lexicalization includes, but is not limited to, choosing particular words for the expression of concepts and relations. In some examples, referring expression generation includes, but is not limited to, choosing how to refer to an entity so that it can be unambiguously identified by the reader.
In some example embodiments, the microplanner 132 may embody or otherwise may be in data communication with a spatial utilities system 140. The microplanner 132 may interact with the spatial utilities system 140 in an instance in which the microplanner detects spatial data in a slot of a message in the document plan tree input from the document planner 130. As such, the spatial utilities system 140 is configured to determine or otherwise identify the communicative context of an output text as is provided via the domain model 112 and/or the linguistic resources 114. In some example embodiments, the communicative context may signal, to the spatial utilities system 140, a domain for which the text is to be generated. In other examples, the communicative context may signal to the spatial utilities system 140, a location of a reader of the output text, a sophistication of a reader of the output text, or the more general location that is the topic of the output text. Alternatively or additionally, a communicative context may also include, but is not limited to, the current time that the output text is being generated, user preferences, reader preferences, language preferences, communicative intent and/or the like. In some example embodiments, the spatial utilities system 140 may be configured to output a linguistic description of a set of points, such as points within the spatial area that include the events, occurrences, objects, patterns or the like to be described.
The spatial utilities system 140 may input the spatial data detected in a slot of a message in the document plan tree input from the document planner 130 as a set of points that are representative of a spatial area to be described. The spatial utilities system 140 may linguistically describe the set of points within the spatial area using a coordinate system, such as latitude and longitude. However, in other example embodiments, the spatial utilities system 140 may linguistically describe the set of points within the spatial area using one or more descriptors, where each of the descriptors is defined by a partition. As such, the spatial utilities system 140 may input or otherwise identify a spatial area that is to be described by the output text.
Based on the spatial area to be described, the spatial utilities system 140 may determine one or more partitions that may be used to linguistically describe the entire spatial area (e.g. cardinal directions to describe geography, right side or left side to describe a two dimensional image and/or the like). The spatial utilities system 140 is further configured to determine one or more descriptors defined by the one or more elements of a partition that may be used to linguistically describe the set of points within the spatial area. In one example embodiment, each descriptor may be tested as a stand-alone or single descriptor to determine if a single descriptor is capable of describing the set of points. Each single descriptor is scored based on the portion of the set of points that are described by the descriptor. Points may be deducted from a score based on the presence of false positives and/or false negatives.
Once scored, each descriptor may be compared to a score that must be obtained in order for a descriptor to be chosen, such as a predetermined single threshold descriptor score. The predetermined single descriptor threshold score may be defined by a domain model, communicative context or the like. Providing that a score for a descriptor satisfies the threshold, the descriptor with the highest score is chosen as the descriptor to linguistically describe the set of points.
In an instance in which a single descriptor is not sufficient (e.g. it does not satisfy a predetermined single threshold descriptor score), the spatial utilities system 140 is then configured to generate one or more combinations of descriptors. In some cases, the spatial utilities system 140 may generate and score pairs of descriptors. Initially, the spatial utilities system 140 may then determine if any of the pair of descriptors satisfy a threshold, such as a predetermined descriptor combination threshold score. The predetermined descriptor combination threshold score may be defined by a domain model, communicative context or the like. If the threshold is satisfied, then the pair of descriptors having the highest score is chosen. If the threshold is not satisfied, then the number of descriptors that can be combined is incremented by one and the process continues until all combinations are exhausted or a combination of descriptors satisfies the threshold. Alternatively or additionally, all combinations of descriptors may also be generated and scored, such that the combination with the highest score that satisfies the threshold is chosen. In some examples, the number of descriptors to be combined is based on the importance of the event to be described in the output text.
In some example embodiments, neither a single descriptor nor a combination of descriptors satisfies a threshold value and, as such, no descriptor or combination of descriptors will be chosen by the spatial utilities system 140. In such cases, and in one example embodiment, the spatial utilities system 140 may then select the highest scoring single descriptor and include a modifier such as, but not limited to: “in many areas”, “mostly” and/or the like. The modifier is added to ensure the descriptor is modified so that it no longer contains false positives and/or false negatives: for example, “In most areas of the city, there will be rain”. The modifier is chosen from a set of modifiers based on the relationship between the set of points and the descriptor chosen.
Using the partition, the one or more descriptors and the determined relationship, the spatial utilities system 140 is configured to generate a linguistic description of the spatial area subject to one or more external constraints. External constraints may include but are not limited to constraints imposed by a domain model, user preferences, language constraints, output text constraints, previously referred-to partition and/or the like. The spatial utilities system 140 may then output or otherwise provide the linguistic description of the set of points in the spatial area to the microplanner 132. The output of the microplanner 132, in some example embodiments, is a tree-structured realization specification whose leaf-nodes are phrase specifications, and whose internal nodes express rhetorical relations between the leaf nodes.
A realizer 134 is configured to traverse a text specification output by the microplanner 132 to express the text specification in natural language. The realization process that is applied to each phrase specification and further makes use of a grammar (e.g. the grammar of the linguistic resources 114), which specifies the valid syntactic structures in the language and further provides a way of mapping from phrase specifications into the corresponding natural language sentences. The output of the process is, in some example embodiments, a natural language text. In some examples, the natural language text may include embedded mark-up.
In this example the communicative context may determine a threshold value for the selection of the one or more descriptors. For example, for an audience in the United Kingdom, the descriptor “south east U.S.” is likely permissible (e.g. false positives are allowable), because the person in the U.K. is not expecting a direct impact by the storm; however, for an audience in North Carolina (for whom false positives would not be allowed), such a descriptor would be ominous, because it is suggestive that a dangerous storm is going to threaten North Carolina. As such, assuming the linguistic output is for an audience in the United Kingdom, the location of the hurricane as being “in the south east” may be selected and output as a prepositional phrase, such as prepositional phrase 226, to a phrase specification, such as phrase specification 224.
In the example embodiment shown, computing system 300 comprises a computer memory (“memory”) 302, a display 304, one or more processors 306, input/output devices 308 (e.g., keyboard, mouse, CRT or LCD display, touch screen, gesture sensing device and/or the like), other computer-readable media 310, and communications interface 312. The processor 306 may, for example, be embodied as various means including one or more microprocessors with accompanying digital signal processor(s), one or more processor(s) without an accompanying digital signal processor, one or more coprocessors, one or more multi-core processors, one or more controllers, processing circuitry, one or more computers, various other processing elements including integrated circuits such as, for example, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or some combination thereof. Accordingly, although illustrated in
The natural language generation system 102 is shown residing in memory 302. The memory 302 may comprise, for example, transitory and/or non-transitory memory, such as volatile memory, non-volatile memory, or some combination thereof. Although illustrated in
In other embodiments, some portion of the contents, some or all of the components of the natural language generation system 102 may be stored on and/or transmitted over the other computer-readable media 310. The components of the natural language generation system 102 preferably execute on one or more processors 306 and are configured to enable operation of a spatial utilities system, as described herein.
Alternatively or additionally, other code or programs 340 (e.g., an administrative interface, one or more application programming interface, a Web server, and the like) and potentially other data repositories, such as other data sources 330, also reside in the memory 302, and preferably execute on one or more processors 306. Of note, one or more of the components in
The natural language generation system 102 is further configured to provide functions such as those described with reference to
In an example embodiment, components/modules of the natural language generation system 102 are implemented using standard programming techniques. For example, the natural language generation system 102 may be implemented as a “native” executable running on the processor 306, along with one or more static or dynamic libraries. In other embodiments, the natural language generation system 102 may be implemented as instructions processed by a virtual machine that executes as one of the other programs 340. In general, a range of programming languages known in the art may be employed for implementing such example embodiments, including representative implementations of various programming language paradigms, including but not limited to, object-oriented (e.g., Java, C++, C#, Visual Basic.NET, Smalltalk, and the like), functional (e.g., ML, Lisp, Scheme, and the like), procedural (e.g., C, Pascal, Ada, Modula, and the like), scripting (e.g., Perl, Ruby, Python, JavaScript, VBScript, and the like), and declarative (e.g., SQL, Prolog, and the like).
The embodiments described above may also use synchronous or asynchronous client-server computing techniques. Also, the various components may be implemented using more monolithic programming techniques, for example, as an executable running on a single processor computer system, or alternatively decomposed using a variety of structuring techniques, including but not limited to, multiprogramming, multithreading, client-server, or peer-to-peer, running on one or more computer systems each having one or more processors. Some embodiments may execute concurrently and asynchronously, and communicate using message passing techniques. Equivalent synchronous embodiments are also supported. Also, other functions could be implemented and/or performed by each component/module, and in different orders, and by different components/modules, yet still achieve the described functions.
In addition, programming interfaces to the data stored as part of the natural language generation system 102, such as by using one or more application programming interfaces can be made available by mechanisms such as through application programming interfaces (API) (e.g. C, C++, C#, and Java); libraries for accessing files, databases, or other data repositories; through scripting languages such as XML; or through Web servers, FTP servers, or other types of servers providing access to stored data. The message store 110, the domain model 112 and/or the linguistic resources 114 may be implemented as one or more database systems, file systems, or any other technique for storing such information, or any combination of the above, including implementations using distributed computing techniques. Alternatively or additionally, the message store 110, the domain model 112 and/or the linguistic resources 114 may be local data stores but may also be configured to access data from the remote data sources 352.
Different configurations and locations of programs and data are contemplated for use with techniques described herein. A variety of distributed computing techniques are appropriate for implementing the components of the illustrated embodiments in a distributed manner including but not limited to TCP/IP sockets, RPC, RMI, HTTP, Web Services (XML-RPC, JAX-RPC, SOAP, and the like). Other variations are possible. Also, other functionality could be provided by each component/module, or existing functionality could be distributed amongst the components/modules in different ways, yet still achieve the functions described herein.
Furthermore, in some embodiments, some or all of the components of the natural language generation system 102 may be implemented or provided in other manners, such as at least partially in firmware and/or hardware, including, but not limited to one or more ASICs, standard integrated circuits, controllers executing appropriate instructions, and including microcontrollers and/or embedded controllers, FPGAs, complex programmable logic devices (“CPLDs”), and the like. Some or all of the system components and/or data structures may also be stored as contents (e.g., as executable or other machine-readable software instructions or structured data) on a computer-readable medium so as to enable or configure the computer-readable medium and/or one or more associated computing systems or devices to execute or otherwise use or provide the contents to perform at least some of the described techniques. Some or all of the system components and data structures may also be stored as data signals (e.g., by being encoded as part of a carrier wave or included as part of an analog or digital propagated signal) on a variety of computer-readable transmission mediums, which are then transmitted, including across wireless-based and wired/cable-based mediums, and may take a variety of forms (e.g., as part of a single or multiplexed analog signal, or as multiple discrete digital packets or frames). Such computer program products may also take other forms in other embodiments. Accordingly, embodiments of this disclosure may be practiced with other computer system configurations.
As is shown in operation 406, an apparatus may include means, such as the microplanner 132, the spatial utilities system 140, the processor 306, or the like, for generating one or more descriptors that are configured to linguistically describe the portion of the grid. In some example embodiments, the descriptors are generated based on one or more elements in one or more selected partitions and are configured to linguistically describe at least a portion of the set of points. The one or more partitions and/or the one or more descriptors are provided by a domain model, a user and/or the like and are selectable based on the communicative context, user preference or the like.
As is shown in operation 408, an apparatus may include means, such as the microplanner 132, the spatial utilities system 140, the processor 306, or the like, for aligning the set of points with each of the one or more descriptors. As is shown in operation 410, an apparatus may include means, such as the microplanner 132, the spatial utilities system 140, the processor 306, or the like, for scoring each descriptor of the one or more descriptors with respect to describing the set of points.
As is shown in decision operation 412, an apparatus may include means, such as the microplanner 132, the spatial utilities system 140, the processor 306, or the like, for determining whether the score for each descriptor of the one more descriptors satisfies a threshold, such as the predetermined single descriptor threshold score. In an instance in which the threshold is satisfied, then, as is shown in operation 414, an apparatus may include means, such as the microplanner 132, the spatial utilities system 140, the processor 306, or the like, for describing the set of points using the descriptor having the highest score that satisfies the threshold. As such, the descriptor with the highest score is output or otherwise provided for use by the microplanner.
In an instance in which the threshold is not satisfied, then, as is shown in operation 416, an apparatus may include means, such as the microplanner 132, the spatial utilities system 140, the processor 306, or the like, for generating combinations of the one or more descriptors. In some examples an exhaustive set of descriptor combinations may be generated and scored. Alternatively or additionally, in other examples, pairs of descriptors, then sets of three descriptors, up to some pre-specified number of descriptors may be generated and scored separately. For example pairs of descriptors may be generated and scored, if there are not any pairs of descriptors that that satisfy the threshold, then combinations of three descriptors are built and scored until the combinations of descriptors are exhausted.
As is shown in operation 418, an apparatus may include means, such as the microplanner 132, the spatial utilities system 140, the processor 306, or the like, for scoring each combination of descriptors of the one or more descriptors with respect to describing the set of points. In some example embodiments, each descriptor or combination of descriptors may be assigned a score based on the number of points within the set of points it covers over a time period. For example, a descriptor may receive a score based on the notions of precision and recall, whereby the precision of a descriptor is calculated as the proportion of the described points that fall within the set of points to be described, thus providing a measure of the number of false positives, and the recall of the descriptor is calculated as the proportion of the set of points to be described that is captured by the descriptor, thus providing a measure of the number of false negatives. In some examples, the measures of precision and recall may then be combined in some manner that attributes appropriate weightings to false positives and false negatives on the basis of the communicative context, the domain, and the like. In some examples, false positives and false negatives may be equally weighted, so that the score for the descriptor is calculated as the harmonic mean of the precision and recall scores, also known as the balanced F-score, computed, in some example embodiments, as (2×precision×recall)/(precision+recall). Alternatively or additionally, other scoring mechanisms may be used in conjunction with the spatial utilities system 140, such scoring methods include, but are not limited to, scores based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves which are created by plotting the fraction of true positives out of the positives (TPR=true positive rate) vs. the fraction of false positives out of the negatives (FPR=false positive rate) (e.g. product of TPR and (1-FPR)) and/or the like.
As is shown in decision operation 420, an apparatus may include means, such as the microplanner 132, the spatial utilities system 140, the processor 306, or the like, for determining whether the score for each combination of descriptors of the one more descriptors satisfies a threshold, such as the predetermined descriptor combination threshold score. In an instance in which the threshold is satisfied, then, as is shown in operation 422, an apparatus may include means, such as the microplanner 132, the spatial utilities system 140, the processor 306, or the like, for describing the set of points using the combination of descriptors having the highest score that satisfies the threshold. As such, the combination of descriptors with the highest score is output or otherwise provided for use by the microplanner. In an instance in which the threshold is not satisfied, then, as is shown in decision operation 424, an apparatus may include means, such as the microplanner 132, the spatial utilities system 140, the processor 306, or the like, for describing the set of points using the set of one or more descriptors having the highest score and an indication of the relationship between the set of points and the descriptor; for example, “in areas in the north”, or “spots of activity in the south” and/or the like. Alternatively or additionally, the set of points may be described using one or more descriptors having the highest score, subject to external constraints, and an indication of the relationship between the set of points and the descriptor.
Accordingly, blocks of the flowchart support combinations of means for performing the specified functions and combinations of operations for performing the specified functions. It will also be understood that one or more blocks of the flowchart, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based computer systems which perform the specified functions, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.
In some example embodiments, certain ones of the operations herein may be modified or further amplified as described herein. Moreover, in some embodiments additional optional operations may also be included. It should be appreciated that each of the modifications, optional additions or amplifications described herein may be included with the operations herein either alone or in combination with any others among the features described herein.
Many modifications and other embodiments of the inventions set forth herein will come to mind to one skilled in the art to which these inventions pertain having the benefit of the teachings presented in the foregoing descriptions and the associated drawings. Therefore, it is to be understood that the inventions are not to be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed and that modifications and other embodiments are intended to be included within the scope of the appended claims. Moreover, although the foregoing descriptions and the associated drawings describe example embodiments in the context of certain example combinations of elements and/or functions, it should be appreciated that different combinations of elements and/or functions may be provided by alternative embodiments without departing from the scope of the appended claims. In this regard, for example, different combinations of elements and/or functions than those explicitly described above are also contemplated as may be set forth in some of the appended claims. Although specific terms are employed herein, they are used in a generic and descriptive sense only and not for purposes of limitation.
This application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/IB2012/056513, filed Nov. 16, 2012, which is hereby incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5181250 | Morgan et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5237502 | White et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5311429 | Tominaga | May 1994 | A |
5321608 | Namba et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5629687 | Sutton et al. | May 1997 | A |
5794177 | Carus et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5802488 | Edatsune | Sep 1998 | A |
5937385 | Zadrozny | Aug 1999 | A |
6023669 | Suda et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6078914 | Redfern | Jun 2000 | A |
6138087 | Budzinski | Oct 2000 | A |
6266617 | Evans | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6442485 | Evans | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6466899 | Yano et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6665640 | Bennett et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6717513 | Sandelman et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6947885 | Bangalore et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
7043420 | Ratnaparkhi | May 2006 | B2 |
7167824 | Kallulli | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7231341 | Bangalore et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7238313 | Ferencz et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7305336 | Polanyi et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7310969 | Dale | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7346493 | Ringger et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7418447 | Caldwell et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7424363 | Cheng et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7444287 | Claudatos et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7496621 | Pan et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7526424 | Corston-Oliver et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7533089 | Pan et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7562005 | Bangalore et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7684991 | Stohr et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7693813 | Cao | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7711581 | Hood et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7783486 | Rosser et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7809552 | Pan et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7849048 | Langseth et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7849049 | Langseth et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7856390 | Schiller | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7873509 | Budzinski | Jan 2011 | B1 |
7921091 | Cox et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7930169 | Billerey-Mosier | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7933774 | Begeja et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7966172 | Ruiz et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7970601 | Burmester et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7979267 | Ruiz et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8019610 | Walker et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8024331 | Calistri-Yeh et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8037000 | Delmonico et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8082144 | Brown et al. | Dec 2011 | B1 |
8090727 | Lachtarnik et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8150676 | Kaeser | Apr 2012 | B1 |
8175873 | Di Fabbrizio et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8180647 | Walker et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8180758 | Cornali | May 2012 | B1 |
8229937 | Kiefer et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8355903 | Birnbaum et al. | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8374848 | Birnbaum et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8425325 | Hope | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8473911 | Baxter | Jun 2013 | B1 |
8494944 | Schiller | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8515733 | Jansen | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8515737 | Allen | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8548814 | Manuel-Devadoss | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8548915 | Antebi et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8561014 | Mengusoglu et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8566090 | Di Fabbrizio et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8589148 | Atallah et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8589172 | Alonso et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8616896 | Lennox | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8620669 | Walker et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8626613 | Dale et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8630844 | Nichols et al. | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8655889 | Hua et al. | Feb 2014 | B2 |
8676691 | Schiller | Mar 2014 | B2 |
8688434 | Birnbaum et al. | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8700396 | Mengibar et al. | Apr 2014 | B1 |
8738384 | Bansal et al. | May 2014 | B1 |
8738558 | Antebi et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8762134 | Reiter | May 2014 | B2 |
8762133 | Reiter | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8775161 | Nichols et al. | Jul 2014 | B1 |
8825533 | Basson et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8843363 | Birnbaum et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8849670 | Di Cristo et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8886520 | Nichols et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8892417 | Nichols et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8892419 | Lundberg et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8898063 | Sykes et al. | Nov 2014 | B1 |
8903711 | Lundberg et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8903718 | Akuwudike | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8909595 | Gandy et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8914452 | Boston et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8924330 | Antebi et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8930305 | Namburu et al. | Jan 2015 | B2 |
8977953 | Pierre et al. | Mar 2015 | B1 |
8984051 | Olsen et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9002695 | Watanabe et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9002869 | Riezler et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9015730 | Allen et al. | Apr 2015 | B1 |
9028260 | Nanjiani et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
9092276 | Allen et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9104720 | Rakshit et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9110882 | Overell et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9110977 | Pierre et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9111534 | Sylvester et al. | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9135244 | Reiter | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9135662 | Evenhouse et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9146904 | Allen | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9164982 | Kaeser | Oct 2015 | B1 |
9190054 | Riley et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9208147 | Nichols et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
9229927 | Wolfram et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9240197 | Begeja et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9244894 | Dale et al. | Jan 2016 | B1 |
9251134 | Birnbaum et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9251143 | Bird et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9263039 | Di Cristo et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9268770 | Kursun | Feb 2016 | B1 |
9323743 | Reiter | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9405448 | Reiter | Aug 2016 | B2 |
9640045 | Reiter | May 2017 | B2 |
10026274 | Reiter | Jul 2018 | B2 |
20020026306 | Bangalore et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20030126181 | Young | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030131315 | Escher | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030212545 | Kallulli | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040246120 | Benner et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050039107 | Hander et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050022863 | Araki et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050256703 | Markel | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060085667 | Kubota et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060172276 | Higgins | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060178868 | Billerey-Mosier | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060259293 | Orwant | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070078655 | Semkow et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070106628 | Adjali et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070129942 | Ban et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070143099 | Balchandran et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070223699 | Jones | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080126160 | Takuechi | May 2008 | A1 |
20080221865 | Wellmann | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080221870 | Attardi et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080281781 | Zhao et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080312954 | Ullrich et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090089100 | Nenov et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090089126 | Odubiyi | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090111486 | Burstrom | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090156229 | Hein et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090198496 | Denecke | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090281839 | Lynn et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090286514 | Lichorowic et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090287567 | Penberthy et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100070448 | Omoigui | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100146491 | Hirano et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100153095 | Yang et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100174545 | Otani | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100191658 | Kannan et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100203970 | Hope | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100332235 | David | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110010164 | Williams | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110068929 | Franz et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110087486 | Schiller | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110160986 | Wu et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110179006 | Cox et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110218822 | Buisman et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110225185 | Gupta | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110257839 | Mukherjee | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110295823 | Sathish | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120078888 | Brown et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120084027 | Caine | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120136649 | Freising et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120158089 | Bocek et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120173475 | Ash et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120203708 | Psota | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120290289 | Manera et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120310990 | Viegas et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130030810 | Kopparapu et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130066873 | Salvetti et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130076784 | Maurer | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130144606 | Birnbaum et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130145242 | Birnbaum et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130151238 | Beaurpere et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130174026 | Locke | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130185050 | Bird et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130211855 | Eberle et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130238329 | Casella dos Santos | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130238330 | Casella dos Santos | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130238987 | Lutwyche | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130251233 | Yang et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130259374 | He | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130268263 | Park et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130293363 | Plymouth et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130311201 | Chatfield et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20140019531 | Czajka et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140025371 | Min | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140039878 | Wasson | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140052696 | Soroushian | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140062712 | Reiter | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140067377 | Reiter | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140072947 | Boguraev et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140072948 | Boguraev et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140089212 | Sbodio | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140100846 | Haine et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140100901 | Haine et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140100923 | Strezo et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140125660 | Redmann | May 2014 | A1 |
20140143720 | Dimarco et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140149107 | Schilder | May 2014 | A1 |
20140164303 | Bagchi et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140164304 | Bagchi et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140188477 | Zhang | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140278358 | Byron et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140281935 | Byron et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140281951 | Megiddo et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140297268 | Govrin et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140316768 | Khandekar | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140375466 | Reiter | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140379322 | Koutrika et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140379378 | Cohen-Solal et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150006437 | Byron et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150032443 | Karov et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150081299 | Jasinschi et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150081307 | Cederstrom et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150081321 | Jain | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150095015 | Lani et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150106307 | Antebi et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150142418 | Byron et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150142421 | Buurman et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150154359 | Harris et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150163358 | Klemm et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150169522 | Logan et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150169548 | Reiter | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150169659 | Lee et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150169720 | Byron et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150169737 | Bryon et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150179082 | Byron et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150002423 | Reiter | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150227508 | Howald et al. | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150261744 | Suenbuel et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150261836 | Madhani et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150279348 | Cao et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150310013 | Allen et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150310112 | Allen et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150310861 | Waltermann et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150324343 | Carter et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150324347 | Bradshaw et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150324351 | Sripada et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150324413 | Gubin et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150325000 | Sripada | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150326622 | Carter et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150331845 | Guggilla et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150331846 | Guggilla et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150332670 | Akbacak et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150347400 | Sripada | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150356127 | Pierre et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150363363 | Bohra et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150363364 | Sripada | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150363382 | Bohra et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150363390 | Mungi et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150363391 | Mungi et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150371651 | Aharoni et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160019200 | Allen | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160027125 | Bryce | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160055150 | Bird et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160132489 | Reiter | May 2016 | A1 |
20160140090 | Dale et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160328385 | Reiter | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170018107 | Reiter | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20190035232 | Reiter | Jan 2019 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2011247830 | Dec 2011 | AU |
2011253627 | Dec 2011 | AU |
2013201755 | Sep 2013 | AU |
2013338351 | May 2015 | AU |
2577721 | Mar 2006 | CA |
2826116 | Mar 2006 | CA |
103999081 | Aug 2014 | CN |
104182059 | Dec 2014 | CN |
104881320 | Sep 2015 | CN |
1 336 955 | May 2006 | EP |
2707809 | Mar 2014 | EP |
2750759 | Jul 2014 | EP |
2849103 | Mar 2015 | EP |
2518192 | Mar 2015 | GB |
61-221873 | Oct 1986 | JP |
2004-21791 | Jan 2004 | JP |
2014165766 | Sep 2014 | JP |
WO-2000074394 | Dec 2000 | WO |
WO-2002031628 | Apr 2002 | WO |
WO-2002073449 | Sep 2002 | WO |
WO-2002073531 | Sep 2002 | WO |
WO-2002031628 | Oct 2002 | WO |
WO 2006010044 | Jan 2006 | WO |
WO-2007041221 | Apr 2007 | WO |
WO-2009014465 | Jan 2009 | WO |
WO-2010049925 | May 2010 | WO |
WO-2010051404 | May 2010 | WO |
WO-2012071571 | May 2012 | WO |
WO 2013009613 | Jan 2013 | WO |
WO-2013042115 | Mar 2013 | WO |
WO-2013042116 | Mar 2013 | WO |
WO 2013177280 | Nov 2013 | WO |
WO 2014035402 | Mar 2014 | WO |
WO 2014098560 | Jun 2014 | WO |
WO 2014140977 | Sep 2014 | WO |
WO 2014187076 | Nov 2014 | WO |
WO 2015028844 | Mar 2015 | WO |
WO 2015113301 | Aug 2015 | WO |
WO 2015148278 | Oct 2015 | WO |
WO 2015159133 | Oct 2015 | WO |
WO 2015164253 | Oct 2015 | WO |
WO 2015175338 | Nov 2015 | WO |
WO 2016004266 | Jan 2016 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/IB2012/056513 dated Jun. 26, 2013. |
Reiter, E. et al., Building Natural Language Generation Systems, Cambridge University Press (2000), 138 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/IB2012/056514 dated Jun. 26, 2013. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/IB2012/057773 dated Jul. 1, 2013 |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/IB2012/057774 dated Sep. 20, 2013. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/IB2013/050375 dated May 7, 2013. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/053115 dated Jul. 24, 2013. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/053127 dated Jul. 24, 2013. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/053128 dated Jun. 27, 2013. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/053156 dated Sep. 26, 2013. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/053183 dated Jun. 4, 2013. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/061051 dated Jul. 24, 2013. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/US2012/063343; dated Jan. 15, 2014. |
International Search Report for Application No. PCT/IB2013/058131 dated Jul. 3, 2014. |
Alawneh, A. L. et al., Pattern Recognition Techniques Applied to the Abstraction of Traces of Inter-Process Communication, Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR), 2011 15th European Conference on Year: 2011, IEEE Conference Publications (2011) pp. 211-220. |
Andre, E. et al., From Visual Data to Multimedia Presentations, Grounding Representations: Integration of Sensory Information in Natural Language Processing, Artificial Intelligence and Neural networks, IEE Colloquium on (May 15, 1995) pp. 1-3. |
Andre, E. et al., Natural Language Access to Visual Data: Dealing with Space and Movement, Report 63, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI) SFB 314, Project VITRA, (Nov. 1989) 1-21. |
Barzilay, R., et al.; “Aggregation via Set Partitioning for Natural Language Generation” Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL; pp. 359-366; dated Jun. 2006. |
Bhoedjang, R. A. F. et al., Optimizing Distributed Data Structures Using Application-Specific Network Interface Software, Parallel Processing, 1998, Proceedings; 1998 International Conference on Year: 1998, IEEE Conference Publications (1998) pp. 485-492. |
Cappozzo, A. et al., Surface-Marker Cluster Design Criteria for 3-D Bone Movement Reconstruction, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, vol. 44, No. 12 (Dec. 1997) 1165-1174. |
Dragon, R. et al., Multi-Scale Clustering of Frame-to-Frame Correspondences for Motion Segmentation, Computer Vision ECCV 2012, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Oct. 7, 2012) 445-458. |
Gatt, A. et al., From Data to Text in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Using NLG Technology for Decision Support and Information Management, AI Communication (Jan. 1, 2009) 153-186. |
Gorelov, S. s. et al., Search Optimization in Semistructured Databases Using Hierarchy of Document Schemas, Programming and Computer Software, vol. 31, No. 6 (2005) 321-331. |
Hercules, D., et al.; “Assresation in Natural Language Generation,” Trends in Natural Language Generation, an Artificial Intelligence Perspective; pp. 88-105; dated Apr. 1993. |
Herzog, G. et al., Combining Alternatives in the Multimedia Presentation of Decision Support Information for Real-Time Control, IFIP (1998) 15 pages. |
Kottke, D. P. et al., Motion Estimation Via Cluster Matching, 8180 IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 16, No. 11 (Nov. 1994) 1128-1132. |
Leonov, A. v. et al., Construction of an Optimal Relational Schema for Storing XML Documents in an RDBMS Without Using DTD/XML Schema, Programming and Computer Software, vol. 30, No. 6 (2004) 323-336. |
Perry, B. et al., Automatic Realignment of Data Structures to Improve MPI Performance, Networks (ICN), 2010 Ninth International Conference on Year: 2010, IEEE Conference Publications (2010) pp. 42-47. |
Quinlan, J. R., Induction of Decision Trees, Machine Learning, Kluwer Academic Publishers, vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan. 1, 1986) 81-106. |
Radev, D. R. et al., Generating Natural Language Summaries from Multiple On-Line Sources, Association of Computational Linguistics, vol. 24, No. 3 (1998) 469-500. |
Reiter, E., An Architecture for Data-to-Text Systems, Proceedings of ENLG-2007 (Jun. 20, 2007) 97-104. |
Reiter, E. et al. Building Applied Natural Language Generation Systems, Natural Language Engineering 1 (1) (1995) 31 pages. |
Shaw, J.; “Clause Aggregation Using Linguistic Knowledge;” Proceedings of IWNLG; pp. 138-147; dated Jan. 1998; retrieved from <http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/W/W98/W98-1415.pdf>. |
Spillner, J. et al., Algorithms for Dispersed Processing, Utility and Cloud Computing (UC), 204 IEEE/ACM 7th International Conference on Year: 2014, IEEE Conferenced Publications (2014) pp. 914-921. |
Voelz, D. et al., Rocco: A RoboCup Soccer Commentator System, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence DFKI GmbH (1999) 11 pages. |
Yu, J. et al., Choosing the Content of Textual Summaries of Large Time-Series Data Sets, Natural Language Engineering 13, (Jan. 1, 2007) pp. 1-28. |
Statement in accordance with the Notice from the European patent Office dated Oct. 1, 2007 concerning business methods (OJ EPO Nov. 2007, 592-593, (XP002456414) 1 page. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/023,023 dated Mar. 4, 2014. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/023,023 dated Apr. 11, 2014. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/023,056 dated Nov. 21, 2013. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/023,056 dated Apr. 29, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/779,636; entitled “System and Method for Using Data to Automatically Generate A Narrative Story”. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/186,308; entitled “Method and Apparatus for Triggering The Automatic Generation of Narratives”. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/186,329; entitled “Method and Apparatus for Triggering The Automatic Generation of Narratives”. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/186,337; entitled “Method and Apparatus for Triggering The Automatic Generation of Narratives”. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/186,346; entitled “Method and Apparatus for Triggering The Automatic Generation of Narratives”. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,635; entitled “Use of Tools and Abstraction in a Configurable and Portable System for Generating Narratives”. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,675; entitled “Configurable and Portable for Generating Narratives”. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/464,716; entitled “Configurable and Portable for Generating Narratives”. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/023,023; entitled “Method and Apparatus for Alert on;” filed Sep. 10, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/023,056; entitled “Method and Apparatus for Situational Analysis Text Generation;” filed Sep. 10, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/027,684, filed Sep. 16, 2013; In re: Sripad et al., entitled Method, Apparatus, and Computer Program Product for User-Directed Reporting. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/027,775; entitled “Method and Apparatus for Interactive Reports”, filed Sep. 16, 2013. |
Kukich, K., Knowledge-Based Report Generation: A Knowledge-Engineering Approach to Natural Language Report Generation, Dissertation to The Interdisciplinary Department of Information Science, University of Pittsburg (Aug. 1983) 260 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/914,461, filed Feb. 25, 2016; In re: Reiter et al., entitled Text Generation From Correlated Alerts. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/022,420, filed Mar. 16, 2016; In re: Mahamood, entitlted Method and Apparatus for Document Planning. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/074,425, filed Mar. 18, 2016; In re: Reiter, entitled Method and Apparatus for Situational Analysis Text Generation. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/093,337, filed Apr. 7, 2016; In re: Reiter, entitled Method and Apparatus for Referring Expression Generation. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/093,365, filed Apr. 7, 2016; In re: Logan et al., entitled Method and Apparatus for Updating a Previously Generated Text. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 15/421,921 dated Mar. 14, 2018. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/074,425 dated Feb. 26, 2018. |
Dalianis, H. et al.; “Aggregation in Natural Language Generation” Trends in Natural Language Generation, an Artificial Intelligence Perspective; pp. 88-105; dated 1996. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/IB2012/056513 dated May 19, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/IB2012/056514 dated May 19, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/IB2012/057773 dated Jun. 30, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/IB2012/057774 dated Jun. 30, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/IB2013/050375 dated Jul. 21, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/IB2013/058131 dated May 5, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/IB2014/060846 dated Oct. 18, 2016. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/US2012/053115 dated Mar. 3, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/US2012/053127 dated Mar. 3, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/US2012/053128 dated Mar. 3, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/US2012/053156 dated Mar. 3, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/US2012/053183 dated Mar. 3, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/US2012/061051 dated Mar. 3, 2015. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for Application No. PCT/US2012/063343 dated May 5, 2015. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/IB2013/058131 dated Jul. 3, 2014. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/IB2014/060846 dated Feb. 4, 2015. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/311,806 dated Dec. 28, 2016. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/311,998 dated Dec. 22, 2015. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/311,998 dated Jan. 21, 2016. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 14/634,035 dated Mar. 30, 2016. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/311,806 dated Jun. 10, 2016. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/311,998 dated Feb. 20, 2015. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/311,998 dated Oct. 7, 2015. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/634,035 dated Aug. 28, 2015. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/634,035 dated Dec. 10, 2015. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 14/634,035 dated Mar. 30, 2016. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/074,425 dated May 10, 2017. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/188,423 dated Oct. 23, 2017. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/421,921 dated Sep. 27, 2017. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/311,998, entitled Method and Apparatus for Situational Analysis Text Generation; In re: Reiter; filed Jun. 23, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/634,035, entitled Method and Apparatus for Annotating a Graphical Output; In re: Reiter; filed Feb. 27, 2015. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/311,806; entitled Method and Apparatus for Alert Validation; In re: Reiter, filed Jun. 23, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/188,423, filed Jun. 21, 2016; In re: Reiter, entitled Method and Apparatus for Annotating a Graphical Output. |
U.S. Appl. No. 15/421,921, filed Feb. 1, 2017; In re: Reiter, entitled Method and Apparatus for Alert Validation. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/188,423 dated Jul. 20, 2018. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 15/188,423 dated Dec. 28, 2018. |
Notice of Allowance for U.S. Appl. No. 16/009,006 dated Jul. 31, 2019. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/074,425 dated Nov. 27, 2018. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/188,423 dated Oct. 30, 2018. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 16/009,006 dated Dec. 3, 2018. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 15/074,425 dated Oct. 4, 2019. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150324374 A1 | Nov 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | PCT/IB2012/056513 | Nov 2012 | US |
Child | 14702341 | US |