Morphological Analysis as Classification: an Inductive-Learning Approach

Morphological analysis is an important subtask in text-to-speech conversion, hyphenation, and other language engineering tasks. The traditional approach to performing morphological analysis is to combine a morpheme lexicon, sets of (linguistic) rules, and heuristics to find a most probable analysis. In contrast we present an inductive learning approach in which morphological analysis is reformulated as a segmentation task. We report on a number of experiments in which five inductive learning algorithms are applied to three variations of the task of morphological analysis. Results show (i) that the generalisation performance of the algorithms is good, and (ii) that the lazy learning algorithm IB1-IG performs best on all three tasks. We conclude that lazy learning of morphological analysis as a classification task is indeed a viable approach; moreover, it has the strong advantages over the traditional approach of avoiding the knowledge-acquisition bottleneck, being fast and deterministic in learning and processing, and being language-independent.Comment: 11 pages, 5 encapsulated postscript figures, uses non-standard NeMLaP proceedings style nemlap.sty; inputs ipamacs (international phonetic alphabet) and epsf macro

SkILL - a Stochastic Inductive Logic Learner

Probabilistic Inductive Logic Programming (PILP) is a rel- atively unexplored area of Statistical Relational Learning which extends classic Inductive Logic Programming (ILP). This work introduces SkILL, a Stochastic Inductive Logic Learner, which takes probabilistic annotated data and produces First Order Logic theories. Data in several domains such as medicine and bioinformatics have an inherent degree of uncer- tainty, that can be used to produce models closer to reality. SkILL can not only use this type of probabilistic data to extract non-trivial knowl- edge from databases, but it also addresses efficiency issues by introducing a novel, efficient and effective search strategy to guide the search in PILP environments. The capabilities of SkILL are demonstrated in three dif- ferent datasets: (i) a synthetic toy example used to validate the system, (ii) a probabilistic adaptation of a well-known biological metabolism ap- plication, and (iii) a real world medical dataset in the breast cancer domain. Results show that SkILL can perform as well as a deterministic ILP learner, while also being able to incorporate probabilistic knowledge that would otherwise not be considered

Building Machines That Learn and Think Like People

Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI) has renewed interest in building systems that learn and think like people. Many advances have come from using deep neural networks trained end-to-end in tasks such as object recognition, video games, and board games, achieving performance that equals or even beats humans in some respects. Despite their biological inspiration and performance achievements, these systems differ from human intelligence in crucial ways. We review progress in cognitive science suggesting that truly human-like learning and thinking machines will have to reach beyond current engineering trends in both what they learn, and how they learn it. Specifically, we argue that these machines should (a) build causal models of the world that support explanation and understanding, rather than merely solving pattern recognition problems; (b) ground learning in intuitive theories of physics and psychology, to support and enrich the knowledge that is learned; and (c) harness compositionality and learning-to-learn to rapidly acquire and generalize knowledge to new tasks and situations. We suggest concrete challenges and promising routes towards these goals that can combine the strengths of recent neural network advances with more structured cognitive models.Comment: In press at Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Open call for commentary proposals (until Nov. 22, 2016). https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/information/calls-for-commentary/open-calls-for-commentar

Machine Learning in Automated Text Categorization

The automated categorization (or classification) of texts into predefined categories has witnessed a booming interest in the last ten years, due to the increased availability of documents in digital form and the ensuing need to organize them. In the research community the dominant approach to this problem is based on machine learning techniques: a general inductive process automatically builds a classifier by learning, from a set of preclassified documents, the characteristics of the categories. The advantages of this approach over the knowledge engineering approach (consisting in the manual definition of a classifier by domain experts) are a very good effectiveness, considerable savings in terms of expert manpower, and straightforward portability to different domains. This survey discusses the main approaches to text categorization that fall within the machine learning paradigm. We will discuss in detail issues pertaining to three different problems, namely document representation, classifier construction, and classifier evaluation.Comment: Accepted for publication on ACM Computing Survey

Inducing Probabilistic Grammars by Bayesian Model Merging

We describe a framework for inducing probabilistic grammars from corpora of positive samples. First, samples are {\em incorporated} by adding ad-hoc rules to a working grammar; subsequently, elements of the model (such as states or nonterminals) are {\em merged} to achieve generalization and a more compact representation. The choice of what to merge and when to stop is governed by the Bayesian posterior probability of the grammar given the data, which formalizes a trade-off between a close fit to the data and a default preference for simpler models (`Occam's Razor'). The general scheme is illustrated using three types of probabilistic grammars: Hidden Markov models, class-based $n$-grams, and stochastic context-free grammars.Comment: To appear in Grammatical Inference and Applications, Second International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference; Springer Verlag, 1994. 13 page