Natural language processing

Beginning with the basic issues of NLP, this chapter aims to chart the major research activities in this area since the last ARIST Chapter in 1996 (Haas, 1996), including: (i) natural language text processing systems - text summarization, information extraction, information retrieval, etc., including domain-specific applications; (ii) natural language interfaces; (iii) NLP in the context of www and digital libraries ; and (iv) evaluation of NLP systems

On the use of word embedding for cross language plagiarism detection

[EN] Cross language plagiarism is the unacknowledged reuse of text across language pairs. It occurs if a passage of text is translated from source language to target language and no proper citation is provided. Although various methods have been developed for detection of cross language plagiarism, less attention has been paid to measure and compare their performance, especially when tackling with different types of paraphrasing through translation. In this paper, we investigate various approaches to cross language plagiarism detection. Moreover, we present a novel approach to cross language plagiarism detection using word embedding methods and explore its performance against other state-of-the-art plagiarism detection algorithms. In order to evaluate the methods, we have constructed an English-Persian bilingual plagiarism detection corpus (referred to as HAMTA-CL) comprised of seven types of obfuscation. The results show that the word embedding approach outperforms the other approaches with respect to recall when encountering heavily paraphrased passages. On the other hand, translation based approach performs well when the precision is the main consideration of the cross language plagiarism detection system.Asghari, H.; Fatemi, O.; Mohtaj, S.; Faili, H.; Rosso, P. (2019). On the use of word embedding for cross language plagiarism detection. Intelligent Data Analysis. 23(3):661-680. https://doi.org/10.3233/IDA-183985S661680233H. Asghari, K. Khoshnava, O. Fatemi and H. Faili, Developing bilingual plagiarism detection corpus using sentence aligned parallel corpus: Notebook for {PAN} at {CLEF} 2015, In L. Cappellato, N. Ferro, G.J.F. Jones and E. SanJuan, editors, Working Notes of {CLEF} 2015 – Conference and Labs of the Evaluation forum, Toulouse, France, September 8–11, 2015, volume 1391 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2015.A. Barrón-Cede no, M. Potthast, P. Rosso and B. Stein, Corpus and evaluation measures for automatic plagiarism detection, In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, M. Rosner and D. Tapias, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, {LREC} 2010, 17–23 May 2010, Valletta, Malta. European Language Resources Association, 2010.A. Barrón-Cede no, P. Rosso, D. Pinto and A. Juan, On cross-lingual plagiarism analysis using a statistical model, In B. Stein, E. Stamatatos and M. Koppel, editors, Proceedings of the ECAI’08 Workshop on Uncovering Plagiarism, Authorship and Social Software Misuse, Patras, Greece, July 22, 2008, volume 377 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2008.Farghaly, A., & Shaalan, K. (2009). Arabic Natural Language Processing. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing, 8(4), 1-22. doi:10.1145/1644879.1644881J. Ferrero, F. Agnès, L. Besacier and D. Schwab, A multilingual, multi-style and multi-granularity dataset for cross-language textual similarity detection, In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, M. Grobelnik, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, A. Moreno, J. Odijk and S. Piperidis, editors, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation {LREC} 2016, Portorož, Slovenia, May 23–28, 2016, European Language Resources Association {(ELRA)}, 2016.Franco-Salvador, M., Gupta, P., Rosso, P., & Banchs, R. E. (2016). Cross-language plagiarism detection over continuous-space- and knowledge graph-based representations of language. Knowledge-Based Systems, 111, 87-99. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2016.08.004Franco-Salvador, M., Rosso, P., & Montes-y-Gómez, M. (2016). A systematic study of knowledge graph analysis for cross-language plagiarism detection. Information Processing & Management, 52(4), 550-570. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2015.12.004C.K. Kent and N. Salim, Web based cross language plagiarism detection, CoRR, abs/0912.3, 2009.McNamee, P., & Mayfield, J. (2004). Character N-Gram Tokenization for European Language Text Retrieval. Information Retrieval, 7(1/2), 73-97. doi:10.1023/b:inrt.0000009441.78971.beT. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. Corrado and J. Dean, Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space, CoRR, abs/1301.3, 2013.S. Mohtaj, B. Roshanfekr, A. Zafarian and H. Asghari, Parsivar: A language processing toolkit for persian, In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, K. Hasida, H. Isahara, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis and T. Tokunaga, editors, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2018, Miyazaki, Japan, May 7–12, 2018, European Language Resources Association ELRA, 2018.R.M.A. Nawab, M. Stevenson and P.D. Clough, University of Sheffield – Lab Report for {PAN} at {CLEF} 2010, In M. Braschler, D. Harman and E. Pianta, editors, {CLEF} 2010 LABs and Workshops, Notebook Papers, 22–23 September 2010, Padua, Italy, volume 1176 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2010.G. Oberreuter, G. L’Huillier, S.A. Rios and J.D. Velásquez, Approaches for intrinsic and external plagiarism detection – Notebook for {PAN} at {CLEF} 2011, In V. Petras, P. Forner and P.D. Clough, editors, {CLEF} 2011 Labs and Workshop, Notebook Papers, 19–22 September 2011, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, volume 1177 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2011.Pinto, D., Civera, J., Barrón-Cedeño, A., Juan, A., & Rosso, P. (2009). A statistical approach to crosslingual natural language tasks. Journal of Algorithms, 64(1), 51-60. doi:10.1016/j.jalgor.2009.02.005M. Potthast, A. Barrón-Cede no, A. Eiselt, B. Stein and P. Rosso, Overview of the 2nd international competition on plagiarism detection, In M. Braschler, D. Harman and E. Pianta, editors, {CLEF} 2010 LABs and Workshops, Notebook Papers, 22–23 September 2010, Padua, Italy, volume 1176 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2010.Potthast, M., Barrón-Cedeño, A., Stein, B., & Rosso, P. (2010). Cross-language plagiarism detection. Language Resources and Evaluation, 45(1), 45-62. doi:10.1007/s10579-009-9114-zM. Potthast, A. Eiselt, A. Barrón-Cede no, B. Stein and P. Rosso, Overview of the 3rd international competition on plagiarism detection, In V. Petras, P. Forner and P.D. Clough, editors, {CLEF} 2011 Labs and Workshop, Notebook Papers, 19–22 September 2011, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, volume 1177 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2011.M. Potthast, S. Goering, P. Rosso and B. Stein, Towards data submissions for shared tasks: First experiences for the task of text alignment, In L. Cappellato, N. Ferro, G.J.F. Jones and E. SanJuan, editors, Working Notes of {CLEF} 2015 – Conference and Labs of the Evaluation forum, Toulouse, France, September 8–11, 2015, volume 1391 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2015.Potthast, M., Stein, B., & Anderka, M. (s. f.). A Wikipedia-Based Multilingual Retrieval Model. Advances in Information Retrieval, 522-530. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78646-7_51B. Pouliquen, R. Steinberger and C. Ignat, Automatic identification of document translations in large multilingual document collections, CoRR, abs/cs/060, 2006.B. Stein, E. Stamatatos and M. Koppel, Proceedings of the ECAI’08 Workshop on Uncovering Plagiarism, Authorship and Social Software Misuse, Patras, Greece, July 22, 2008, volume 377 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2008.J. Wieting, M. Bansal, K. Gimpel and K. Livescu, Towards universal paraphrastic sentence embeddings, CoRR, abs/1511.0, 2015.V. Zarrabi, J. Rafiei, K. Khoshnava, H. Asghari and S. Mohtaj, Evaluation of text reuse corpora for text alignment task of plagiarism detection, In L. Cappellato, N. Ferro, G.J.F. Jones and E. SanJuan, editors, Working Notes of {CLEF} 2015 – Conference and Labs of the Evaluation forum, Toulouse, France, September 8–11, 2015, volume 1391 of {CEUR} Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2015.Barrón-Cedeño, A., Gupta, P., & Rosso, P. (2013). Methods for cross-language plagiarism detection. Knowledge-Based Systems, 50, 211-217. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2013.06.01

Knowledge Expansion of a Statistical Machine Translation System using Morphological Resources

Translation capability of a Phrase-Based Statistical Machine Translation (PBSMT) system mostly depends on parallel data and phrases that are not present in the training data are not correctly translated. This paper describes a method that efficiently expands the existing knowledge of a PBSMT system without adding more parallel data but using external morphological resources. A set of new phrase associations is added to translation and reordering models; each of them corresponds to a morphological variation of the source/target/both phrases of an existing association. New associations are generated using a string similarity score based on morphosyntactic information. We tested our approach on En-Fr and Fr-En translations and results showed improvements of the performance in terms of automatic scores (BLEU and Meteor) and reduction of out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words. We believe that our knowledge expansion framework is generic and could be used to add different types of information to the model.JRC.G.2-Global security and crisis managemen

Indexing with WordNet synsets can improve Text Retrieval

The classical, vector space model for text retrieval is shown to give better results (up to 29% better in our experiments) if WordNet synsets are chosen as the indexing space, instead of word forms. This result is obtained for a manually disambiguated test collection (of queries and documents) derived from the Semcor semantic concordance. The sensitivity of retrieval performance to (automatic) disambiguation errors when indexing documents is also measured. Finally, it is observed that if queries are not disambiguated, indexing by synsets performs (at best) only as good as standard word indexing.Comment: 7 pages, LaTeX2e, 3 eps figures, uses epsfig, colacl.st

Utilizing graph-based representation of text in a hybrid approach to multiple documents summarization

The aim of automatic text summarization is to process text with the purpose of identifying and presenting the most important information appearing in the text. In this research, we aim to investigate automatic multiple document summarization using a hybrid approach of extractive and “shallow abstractive methods. We aim to utilize the graph-based representation approach proposed in [1] and [2] as part of our method to multiple document summarization aiming to provide concise, informative and coherent summaries. We start by scoring sentences based on significance to extract top scoring ones from each document of the set of documents being summarized. In this step, we look into different criteria of scoring sentences, which include: the presence of highly frequent words of the document, the presence of highly frequent words of the set of documents and the presence of words found in the first and last sentence of the document and the different combination of such features. Upon running our experiments we found that the best combination of features to use is utilizing the presence of highly frequent words of the document and presence of words found in the first and last sentences of the document. The average f-score of those features had an average of 7.9% increase to other features\u27 f-scores. Secondly, we address the issue of redundancy of information through clustering sentences of same or similar information into one cluster that will be compressed into one sentence, thus avoiding redundancy of information as much as possible. We investigated clustering the extracted sentences based on two criteria for similarity, the first of which uses word frequency vector for similarity measure and the second of which uses word semantic similarity. Through our experiment, we found that the use of the word vector features yields much better clusters in terms of sentence similarity. The word feature vector had a 20% more number of clusters labeled to contain similar sentences as opposed to those of the word semantic feature. We then adopted a graph-based representation of text proposed in [1] and [2] to represent each sentence in a cluster, and using the k-shortest paths we found the shortest path to represent the final compressed sentence and use it as a final sentence in the summary. Human evaluator scored sentences based on grammatical correctness and almost 74% of 51 sentences evaluated got a perfect score of 2 which is a perfect or near perfect sentence. We finally propose a method for scoring the compressed sentences according to the order in which they should appear in the final summary. We used the Document Understanding Conference dataset for year 2014 as the evaluating dataset for our final system. We used the ROUGE system for evaluation which stands for Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation. This system compare the automatic summaries to “ideal human references. We also compared our summaries ROUGE scores to those of summaries generated using the MEAD summarization tool. Our system provided better precision and f-score as well as comparable recall scores. On average our system has a percentage increase of 2% for precision and 1.6% increase in f-score than those of MEAD while MEAD has an increase of 0.8% in recall. In addition, our system provided more compressed version of the summary as opposed to that generated by MEAD. We finally ran an experiment to evaluate the order of sentences in the final summary and its comprehensibility where we show that our ordering method produced a comprehensible summary. On average, summaries that scored a perfect score in term of comprehensibility constitute 72% of the evaluated summaries. Evaluators were also asked to count the number of ungrammatical and incomprehensible sentences in the evaluated summaries and on average they were only 10.9% of the summaries sentences. We believe our system provide a \u27shallow abstractive summary to multiple documents that does not require intensive Natural Language Processing.