Skip to main content

Tell Me Why: Computational Explanation of Conceptual Similarity Judgments

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. Theory and Foundations (IPMU 2018)

Abstract

In this paper we introduce a system for the computation of explanations that accompany scores in the conceptual similarity task. In this setting the problem is, given a pair of concepts, to provide a score that expresses in how far the two concepts are similar. In order to explain how explanations are automatically built, we illustrate some basic features of COVER, the lexical resource that underlies our approach, and the main traits of the MeRaLi system, that computes conceptual similarity and explanations, all in one. To assess the computed explanations, we have designed a human experimentation, that provided interesting and encouraging results, which we report and discuss in depth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    COVER is available for download at http://ls.di.unito.it.

  2. 2.

    InstanceOf, RelatedTo, IsA, AtLocation, dbpedia/genre, Synonym, DerivedFrom, Causes, UsedFor, MotivatedByGoal, HasSubevent, Antonym, CapableOf, Desires, CausesDesire, PartOf, HasProperty, HasPrerequisite, MadeOf, CompoundDerivedFrom, HasFirstSubevent, dbpedia/field, dbpedia/knownFor, dbpedia/influencedBy, dbpedia/influenced, DefinedAs, HasA, MemberOf, ReceivesAction, SimilarTo, dbpedia/influenced, SymbolOf, HasContext, NotDesires, ObstructedBy, HasLastSubevent, NotUsedFor, NotCapableOf, DesireOf, NotHasProperty, CreatedBy, Attribute, Entails, LocationOfAction, LocatedNear.

  3. 3.

    The parameters \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \) were set to .8 and .2 for the experimentation, based on a parameter tuning performed on the RG, MC and WS-Sim datasets [17].

  4. 4.

    Actually the pair \(\langle \)mojito,mohito\(\rangle \) was dropped in that ‘mojito’ was not recognised as a morphological variant of ‘mohito’ by most participants.

  5. 5.

    We refer to common-sense as to a portion of knowledge that is both widely accessible and elementary [20], and reflecting typicality traits encoded as prototypical knowledge [24].

References

  1. Camacho-Collados, J., Pilehvar, M.T., Collier, N., Navigli, R.: SemEval-2017 task 2: multilingual and cross-lingual semantic word similarity. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2017), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 15–26 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Camacho-Collados, J., Pilehvar, M.T., Navigli, R.: NASARI: a novel approach to a semantically-aware representation of items. In: Proceedings of NAACL, pp. 567–577 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cambria, E., Speer, R., Havasi, C., Hussain, A.: SenticNet: a publicly available semantic resource for opinion mining. AAAI fall Symp. Commonsense Knowl. 10, 14–18 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Colla, D., Mensa, E., Radicioni, D.P.: Semantic measures for keywords extraction. In: Esposito, F., Basili, R., Ferilli, S., Lisi, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10640, pp. 128–140. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70169-1_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Gärdenfors, P.: The Geometry of Meaning: Semantics Based on Conceptual Spaces. MIT Press, Cambridge (2014)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Gatt, A., Reiter, E.: SimpleNLG: a realisation engine for practical applications. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, pp. 90–93. Association for Computational Linguistics (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ghignone, L., Lieto, A., Radicioni, D.P.: Typicality-based inference by plugging conceptual spaces into ontologies. In: AIC@ AI* IA, vol. 1100, pp. 68–79 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Harabagiu, S., Moldovan, D.: Question answering. In: The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Havasi, C., Speer, R., Alonso, J.: ConceptNet: a lexical resource for common sense knowledge. Recent Adv. Nat. Lang. Process. V: Sel. Pap. RANLP 309, 269–280 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hovy, E.: Text summarization. In: The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics 2nd edition (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jimenez, S., Becerra, C., Gelbukh, A., Bátiz, A.J.D., Mendizábal, A.: Softcardinality-core: improving text overlap with distributional measures for semantic textual similarity. In: Proceedings of *SEM 2013, vol. 1, pp. 194–201 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lieto, A., Mensa, E., Radicioni, D.P.: A resource-driven approach for anchoring linguistic resources to conceptual spaces. In: Adorni, G., Cagnoni, S., Gori, M., Maratea, M. (eds.) AI*IA 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10037, pp. 435–449. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49130-1_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Lieto, A., Minieri, A., Piana, A., Radicioni, D.P.: A knowledge-based system for prototypical reasoning. Connection Sci. 27(2), 137–152 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lieto, A., Radicioni, D.P., Rho, V.: Dual PECCS: a cognitive system for conceptual representation and categorization. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 29(2), 433–452 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lombardo, V., Piana, F., Mimmo, D., Mensa, E., Radicioni, D.P.: Semantic models for the geological mapping process. In: Esposito, F., Basili, R., Ferilli, S., Lisi, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2017, vol. 10640, pp. 295–306. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70169-1_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Marujo, L., Ribeiro, R., de Matos, D.M., Neto, J.P., Gershman, A., Carbonell, J.: Key phrase extraction of lightly filtered broadcast news. In: Sojka, P., Horák, A., Kopeček, I., Pala, K. (eds.) TSD 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7499, pp. 290–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32790-2_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Mensa, E., Radicioni, D.P., Lieto, A.: MERALI at SemEval-2017 task 2 subtask 1: a cognitively inspired approach. In: Proceedings of SemEval-2017, pp. 236–240. ACL (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mensa, E., Radicioni, D.P., Lieto, A.: TTCS\(^{\cal{E}}\): a vectorial resource for computing conceptual similarity. In: EACL 2017 Workshop on Sense, Concept and Entity Representations and their Applications, pp. 96–101. ACL (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Miller, G.A.: WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun. ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Minsky, M.: A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston, P. (ed.) The Psychology of Computer Vision, pp. 211–277. McGraw-Hill, New York (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Moulin, B., Irandoust, H., Bélanger, M., Desbordes, G.: Explanation and argumentation capabilities: towards the creation of more persuasive agents. Artif. Intell. Rev. 17(3), 169–222 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Navigli, R., Ponzetto, S.P.: BabelNet: the automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artif. Intell. 193, 217–250 (2012)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Resnick, L.B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C.M., Wathen, S.H., Holowchak, M.: Reasoning in conversation. Cogn. Instr. 11(3–4), 347–364 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosch, E.: Cognitive representations of semantic categories. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 104(3), 192–233 (1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sebastiani, F.: Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Comput. Surveys (CSUR) 34(1), 1–47 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tversky, A.: Features of similarity. Psychol. Rev. 84(4), 327–352 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We desire to thank Simone Donetti and the Technical Staff of the Computer Science Department of the University of Turin, for their support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniele P. Radicioni .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Colla, D., Mensa, E., Radicioni, D.P., Lieto, A. (2018). Tell Me Why: Computational Explanation of Conceptual Similarity Judgments. In: Medina, J., et al. Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. Theory and Foundations. IPMU 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 853. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91473-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91473-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-91472-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-91473-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics