Patent Grant
6928448
With the continuing growth of multinational business dealings where the global economy brings together business people of all nationalities and with the ease and frequency of today's travel between countries, the demand for a machine-aided interpersonal communication system that provides accurate near real-time language translation is a compelling need. This system would relieve users of the need to possess specialized linguistic or translational knowledge.
A typical language translation system functions by using natural language processing. Natural language processing is generally concerned with the attempt to recognize a large pattern or sentence by decomposing it into small subpatterns according to linguistic rules. A natural language processing system uses considerable knowledge about the structure of the language, including what the words are, how words combine to form sentences, what the words mean, how word meanings are related to each other, and how word meanings contribute to sentence meanings. Specifically, phonetic and phonological knowledge concerns how words are related to sounds that realize them. Morphological knowledge concerns how words are constructed from more basic units called morphemes. Syntactic knowledge concerns how words can be put together to form correct sentences and determines what structural role each word plays in the sentence and what phrases are subparts of what other phrases. Typical syntactic representations of language are based on the notion of context-free grammars, which represent sentence structure in terms of what phrases are subparts of other phrases. This syntactic information is often presented in a tree form. Semantic knowledge concerns what words mean and the study of context-independent meaning—the meaning a sentence has regardless of the context in which it is used.
Natural language processing systems further comprise interpretation processes that map from one representation to the other. For instance, the process that maps a sentence to its syntactic structure is called parsing, and it is performed by a component called a parser. The parser uses knowledge about word and word meaning, the lexicon, and a set of rules defining the legal structures, the grammar, in order to assign a syntactic structure to an input sentence.
Formally, a context-free grammar of a language is a four-tuple comprising nonterminal vocabularies, terminal vocabularies, a finite set of production rules, and a starting symbol for all productions. The nonterminal and terminal vocabularies are disjoint. The set of terminal symbols is called the vocabulary of the language. Pragmatic knowledge concerns how sentences are used in different situations and how use affects the interpretation of the sentence.
Identified problems with previous approaches to natural language processing are numerous. One previous approach uses a thesaurus to calculate semantic distances between linguistic structures. The thesaurus has a fixed structure including four layers, wherein each layer is assumed to represent a fixed unit with a numeric value of ⅓. However, semantic links encoded in a thesaurus do not always represent the same semantic distance. As a result, this previous approach will sometimes yield erroneous values for semantic similarity. Furthermore, a thesaurus with such a fixed structure may not be readily available for all languages.
Another previous approach uses a negative log likelihood of the most informative thesaurus concept—log p(c)—to calculate semantic similarity between two words.
Therefore, what is required is a thesaurus that may be used with any language, making the natural language processing more efficient and accurate. Also, what is required is a method using such a thesaurus for evaluating similarity among words and phrases, and their linguistic representations.
A system and method for evaluating similarity among multiple data structures are provided. In one embodiment, a number of entries are created in a database and a relative entropy value corresponding to each entry is calculated. Each data structure is analyzed and at least one substructure is generated for each data structure as a result of the analysis. This at least one substructure pertaining to each data structure is matched to the entries in the database to obtain matching entries. Finally, a match value is generated using the relative entropy values corresponding to the matching entries.
a is a block diagram of one embodiment for a natural language translation system.
b, 2c, and 2d are exemplary diagrams of structures used by the natural language translation system of
a and 3b are exemplary diagrams of portions of a thesaurus hierarchy.
A system and method for evaluating similarity among multiple data structures are described. In one embodiment, a system and method for evaluating similarity among a number of data structures, such as feature structures, are provided. Although the present invention relies on feature structures, it will be evident to one skilled in the art that any data structure may be used with the present invention.
In the following detailed description of embodiments of the invention, reference is made to the accompanying drawings in which like references indicate similar elements, and in which is shown by way of illustration specific embodiments in which the invention may be practiced. Numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. However, it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details. In some instances, well-known structures and devices are shown in block diagram form, rather than in detail, in order to avoid obscuring the present invention. These embodiments are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the invention, and it is to be understood that other embodiments may be utilized and that logical, mechanical, electrical and other changes may be made without departing from the scope of the present invention.
Some portions of the detailed descriptions that follow are presented in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations on data bits within a computer memory. These algorithmic descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. An algorithm is here, and generally, conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of acts leading to a desired result. The acts are those requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, though not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared, and otherwise manipulated. It has proven convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, terms, numbers, or the like.
It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities. Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the following discussion, it is appreciated that throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as “processing” or “computing” or “calculating” or “determining” or “displaying” or the like, refer to the action and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the computer system's registers and memories into other data similarly represented as physical quantities within the computer system memories or registers or other such information storage, transmission or display devices.
The present invention also relates to apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer readable storage medium, such as, but is not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical disks, CD-ROMs, and magnetic-optical disks, read-only memories (ROMs), random access memories (RAMs), EPROMs, EEPROMs, magnetic or optical cards, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, and each coupled to a computer system bus.
The algorithms and displays presented herein are not inherently related to any particular computer or other apparatus. Various general purpose systems may be used with programs in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform the required method. For example, any of the methods according to the present invention can be implemented in hard-wired circuitry, by programming a general purpose processor or by any combination of hardware and software. One of skill in the art will immediately appreciate that the invention can be practiced with computer system configurations other than those described below, including hand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. The invention can also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. The required structure for a variety of these systems will appear from the description below.
The methods of the invention are described in terms of computer software. If written in a programming language conforming to a recognized standard, sequences of instructions designed to implement the methods can be compiled for execution on a variety of hardware platforms and for interface to a variety of operating systems. In addition, the present invention is not described with reference to any particular programming language. It will be appreciated that a variety of programming languages may be used to implement the teachings of the invention as described herein. Furthermore, it is common in the art to speak of software, in one form or another (e.g., program, procedure, application . . . ), as taking an action or causing a result. Such expressions are merely a shorthand way of saying that execution of the software by a computer causes the processor of the computer to perform an action or produce a result.
It will be appreciated that computer system 100 may be controlled by operating system software which includes a file management system, such as, for example, a disk operating system, which is part of the operating system software. The file management system may be stored in non-volatile storage device 107 and may be configured to cause processor 102 to execute the various functions required by the operating system to input and output data and to store data in memory 104 and on non-volatile storage device 107.
a is a block diagram of one embodiment for a natural language translation system 200. Referring to
An English sentence “He wants to go to the White House” is used throughout this section as example text input to describe the functioning of the system 200. The individual units in a sentence are referred to herein as “words” but the natural language translation system 200 is not limited to only word-based natural languages, having equal applicability to translation of character-based languages as well. Except where the differences in processing word-based and character-based languages are specified, the term “word” is intended to encompass both words and characters.
In the following description, a grammar is generally a set of context-free rules that define the valid phrase structures in the source or target language, with each context-free rule associated with one or more statements (the “rule body”) that perform tests and manipulations on the linguistic representations (feature structures). Thus, an English sentence may be combined from a noun phase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP), but the subject and verb forms must agree, e.g., “He want to go to the White House” is a valid phrase structure but an improper English sentence. All rule bodies utilized by the grammars of language translation system 200 are in the form of computer-executable routines produced by defining the grammar in terms of a grammar programming language (GPL) and passing appropriate rule bodies (209, 215, 219, and 225) through a GPL compiler 240. The output of the GPL compiler 240 may be in the form of directly executable code, or may be in the form of standard computer programming language statements (such as, for example, C, C++, Pascal, or Lisp) which are then input into the corresponding programming language compiler to produce executable code. In either case, the compiled grammars include a specific function for each context-free rule. The specific function performs all the processing required by the rule and its associated rule body. Furthermore, the interfaces between the compiled grammars and the modules enable a single language translation system 200 to perform translation between multiple natural languages, and to perform more than one translation simultaneously.
A morphological analysis module 206 takes text input 202 and uses a source language dictionary 204 to decompose the words into morphemes by identifying root forms, grammatical categories, thesaurus information, and other lexical features of the words. The morphological analysis module 206 builds a “feature structure” for each word. Feature structures are well known in the art as linguistic data structures that contain feature-value pairs for strings, symbols, and numbers that appear in a natural language sentence. Each feature of a word is mapped to the appropriate value through a function commonly designated as:
The Feature Structure 2 may be referred to as a “disjunctive” feature structure as it represents two mutually exclusive feature structures that are valid for the word.
It will be appreciated that the grammatical category is not the only feature of these two words and that morphological analysis module 206 outputs full feature structures. The example feature structures are simplified for the sake of clarity in explanation and are also frequently represented by a shorthand notation, e.g., [want] or NP[ ].
The feature structures built by morphological analysis module 206 are input into lexical ambiguity reduction module 210. In one embodiment, lexical ambiguity reduction module 210 may segment the words in character-based languages that do not utilize spaces through a database of lexical connector feature rules 208. Lexical connector feature rules 208 are created from GPL grammar statements as described above. Each possible combination of adjacent segmented words are assigned a lexical cost. Dictionary 204 defines combinations of words (“multiwords”). Lexical ambiguity reduction module 210 evaluates each feature structures that contains a part-of-speech (POS) ambiguity, such as the feature structure for the word “wants” which is tagged as both a noun and a verb. The various possible POS tags are assigned a lexical cost. Lexical ambiguity reduction module 210 weighs the cost assigned to each word in the sentence and selects those feature structures that have the lowest cost.
The feature structures chosen for the words by lexical ambiguity reduction module 210 are passed to syntactic analysis module 216. Syntactic analysis module 216 combines the chosen feature structures into a feature structure that represents the content of the input sentence. In one embodiment, syntactic analysis module 216 uses parsing grammar 212 to create a syntax parse tree for the sentence. Parsing grammar 212 contains the source language context-free grammar rules in the form of a parsing table and the associated rule bodies in executable code. Each leaf of the syntax parse tree is a feature structure for one of the words in the sentence. Once the leaves are created, an intermediate feature structure for each branch (parent) node in the syntax parse tree is built by combining its child nodes as specified in one or more of the context-free grammar rules. The rule body for each potentially applicable context-free grammar rule manipulates the various feature structures at the child nodes and determines whether the associated context-free rule could create a valid phrase from the possible combinations. A rule body may cause a thesaurus 214 to be queried as part of the manipulation. It will be appreciated that the feature structure that results from applying the context-free grammar rules may be nested (i.e., contain multiple feature structures from each child node). Syntactic analysis module 216 may create the syntax parse tree shown in
It will be appreciated that both the syntax parse tree 250 and the Feature Structure 3 are not exact representations but are simplified for purposes of ease in explanation.
The feature structure for the sentence in the source language is passed to transfer module 222. The feature structure represents the analysis of the source input and may contain a number of nested linguistic representations (referred herein as sub-structures or slots). Transfer module 222 uses transfer grammar 218 to match source language slots of the input with source language slots in example database 220. Example database 220 contains feature structure pairs in the source language and a target language. For example, database 220 may contain matching feature structures in English and Japanese. Transfer grammar 218 consists of a set of rewrite rules with a context-free component and a GPL rule body. The context-free parts of the rules are used to create a transfer generation tree.
Transfer module 222 uses the GPL rule bodies within transfer grammar 218 to match the input source substructures or slots to the source sub-structures or slots in example database 220. If a good match is found (in one embodiment, a low overall match cost), transfer module 222 checks if all sub-structures or slots of the input feature structure have found a match. If a match for a sub-structure is not found, the sub-structure is used as input to transfer module 222. A transfer generation tree of the form shown in
Transfer module 222 uses the input feature structure (or sub-structure) in the source language as the starting symbol to build transfer generation tree 260. Root 261 is a symbol-node (s-node) and is labeled with the starting symbol of the feature structure. The transfer grammar determines which transfer grammar rules are applicable to the feature structure at the root 261, and creates child rule-node(s) (r-node) 263 depending from root 261. In one embodiment, r-nodes 263 are the rule numbers within transfer grammar 218 that may be validly applied to the input feature structure. Transfer grammar 218 rules added to tree 260 are applied to the s-nodes 265. If the application of each rule succeeds, a child rule-node (r-node) 265 is added to tree 260. If the application fails, the anode 261 is tagged as “dead” for sub-sequent removal. Transfer grammar 218 then creates a new s-node 265 for each r-node 263. Again, the applicable rules are found for each s-node 265 and applied. The process is repeated until all sub-features within the feature structure have been expanded. Transfer generation tree 260 is then pruned to remove any “dead” nodes and corresponding subtrees. If root 261 is tagged as “dead,” the generation fails. Otherwise, the resulting transfer generation tree 260 is used by transfer module 222 to match the feature structure against the example database 220. The feature structures and sub-structures in the target language associated with a match are substituted for the corresponding feature structures and sub-structures matched in the source language. Transfer module 222 recursively applies the transfer rules contained within transfer grammar 218 from the top-most transfer rules until all meaningful sub-features or constituents within the input source feature structure are transferred to the target substructures. The transfer module 222 will consult the thesaurus 214 when required to do so by a transfer rule. Transfer module 222 outputs a feature structure in the target language.
The feature structure for the sentence in the target language is passed to a morphological and syntactical generation module 228, where it is used as the root node for a syntactical generation tree, an example of which is shown in
When the syntactical generation tree is complete, the leaf nodes contain output feature structures representing the words in one or more translations of the input sentence. The sequence of output feature structures that represents the best sentence is converted into output text 230 by the morphological and syntactical generation module 228 using the dictionary 226. Alternatively, all output feature structures for all sentences may be converted into the output text 230.
In
In one embodiment, the thesaurus structure is created manually, using a tool having a “user-friendly” graphic interface, such as data entry equipment. In alternate embodiments, other tools for creating the structure may also be used. The creation and further processing of the thesaurus structure will be described in more detail below.
In one embodiment, thesaurus 214 shown in
As new thesaurus concepts become available and are input within the thesaurus structure, the structure may change due to changes in the relationships between concepts. After the concepts are entered, the thesaurus structure is exported for further processing using a thesaurus link file. The thesaurus link file is created by implementing the concepts residing within the nodes into a format, which contains a series of “is-a” statements, replacing the nodes and branches of the thesaurus structure. An example of a thesaurus link file may be illustrated as follows:
In one embodiment, the creation of the database, such as thesaurus 214, includes creation of the multiple entries in the database, such as the nodes, and calculation of a relative entropy value corresponding to each entry.
At processing block 440, the lexical probability files are read, if available. The lexical probability files contain information about the probability of each word occurring in the domain of translation. If the lexical probability files are not available for reading and compiling, all words are assumed to occur with the same probability in the domain of translation.
At processing block 450, a lexicon database having multiple lexicon entries, containing elements, such as words, is read and possible thesaurus concepts associated with each lexicon entry are assigned. For example, the English noun lexicon entry for “apple” shown below:
At processing block 460, scaled relative entropy values are calculated for each node of the thesaurus structure. Each node corresponding to a thesaurus concept has its own entropy value, Entropy (Node). The scaled relative entropy value corresponding to a node within the thesaurus structure is calculated using the formula:
wherein Entropy (Root Node) is the entropy value corresponding to the root node and k is a constant factor. The entropy of a node, Entropy (Node), is further calculated based on all the words dominated by that node with the formula:
At processing block 470, after the scaled relative entropy value corresponding to each node in the thesaurus structure is calculated, that value is stored, together with the corresponding node, within the thesaurus structure. In one embodiment, the values and nodes are stored in a compressed format. The thesaurus 214 and its structure may now be used within system 200 for further evaluation of the feature structures.
At processing block 530, the thesaurus codes are used to search the thesaurus structure for nodes matching each thesaurus code. In one embodiment, the search returns the most specific thesaurus node corresponding to each substructure. In one embodiment, the most specific thesaurus node is the lowest common parent that dominates the respective thesaurus code within the thesaurus concept structure.
At processing block 540, the relative entropy value corresponding to the most specific thesaurus node returned for each substructure is retrieved and sent to the syntactic analysis module 216. Finally, at processing block 550, a match cost value is calculated using the retrieved relative entropy values. In one embodiment, the match cost is calculated as a sum of the relative entropy values of each returned node and is returned to the system 200 at processing block 560. In alternate embodiments, other formulas may be used to calculate the match cost.
A system for evaluating similarity among multiple data structures is further described in more detail. In
Analyzer 610 receives feature structures and analyzes the structures into substructures for further processing. Matching unit 620 retrieves thesaurus codes from each substructure. Matching unit 620 also matches the retrieved thesaurus codes with nodes within the thesaurus structure, retrieving the most specific node corresponding to each substructure. Matching unit 620 retrieves an associated relative entropy value from thesaurus 650 corresponding to the most specific node of each substructure, sending the relative entropy values into entropy calculator 630. Entropy calculator 630 calculates a match cost value using the retrieved relative entropy values.
Thus, a system and method for evaluating similarity among a plurality of data structures has been provided. Although the present invention has been described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments, it will be evident that various modifications and changes may be made to these embodiments without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the claim. Accordingly, the specification and drawings are to be recorded in an illustrative rather that a restrictive sense.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4905138 | Bourne | Feb 1990 | A |
| 4974191 | Amirghodsi et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
| 5033087 | Bahl et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
| 5068789 | van Vliembergen | Nov 1991 | A |
| 5083268 | Hemphill et al. | Jan 1992 | A |
| 5088038 | Tanaka et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
| 5095432 | Reed | Mar 1992 | A |
| 5111398 | Nunberg et al. | May 1992 | A |
| 5418717 | Su et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5426583 | Uribe-Echebarria Diaz De Mendibil | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5510981 | Berger et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
| 5528491 | Kuno et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
| 5535120 | Chong et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5642519 | Martin | Jun 1997 | A |
| 5644775 | Thompson et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
| 5659765 | Nii | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5677835 | Carbonell et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5680511 | Baker et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5768603 | Brown et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5799268 | Boguraev | Aug 1998 | A |
| 5806021 | Chen et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5864788 | Kutsumi | Jan 1999 | A |
| 5873056 | Liddy et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5884247 | Christy | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5887120 | Wical | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5907821 | Kaji et al. | May 1999 | A |
| 5966686 | Heidorn et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5983169 | Kozma | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6131082 | Hargrave, III et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6161083 | Franz et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
| 6173441 | Klein | Jan 2001 | B1 |
| 6212500 | Kohler | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6230153 | Howard et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6243669 | Horiguchi et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6260008 | Sanfilippo | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6285978 | Bernth et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6285995 | Abdel-Mottaleb et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6301554 | Christy | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6330530 | Horiguchi et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 0 805 403 | Nov 1997 | EP |
