POMMIER: a classification approach for assisted textual comprehension

  1. 1. Ioannis Kanellos

    Department of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science - École nationale supérieure des télécommunications de Bretagne

  2. 2. Xavier Simon

    No affiliation given

  3. 3. Francois Riviere

    No affiliation given

  4. 4. Minh-San Nguyen

    No affiliation given

  5. 5. Emmanuel Mayer

    No affiliation given

  6. 6. Julie Canonge

    No affiliation given

Work text
This plain text was ingested for the purpose of full-text search, not to preserve original formatting or readability. For the most complete copy, refer to the original conference program.

The aim of our work is to set up semi-automatic
devices helping in text interpretation by using
robust classification methods. In the first part we
give some elements of the theoretical background
sustaining the overall approach from a linguistic
point of view; they essentially come from the
theory of interpretative semantics; we try to explain in which sense the problem of the plausible
comprehension of a text may usefully meet classification preoccupations. In the second part we
give a quick overview of algorithmic ideas close
to our aim motivating our technical choices. This
part is completed by details of the implementation
achieved, as well as a quick description of the
interface, its basic use and utility for humanities,
as long as they use texts. Finally, we discuss some
results and suggest the main directions of future
1. Introduction
Our work comes from a rather simple idea; it
consists in considering reading as a classification
oriented activity.“Reading” here has to be understood as a semantic process as a process aiming at
organizing a particular textual input for comprehension objectives. Whatever the very cognitive
nature of such a process may be, one may plausibly model it as a classification task, in so far as
classification is the archetype of organizational
activities. Whatever the case, classes are good
operational paradigms for dealing with semantic
In reading, one tries of course to catch something
of the encoded information as a particular structure of linguistic features; but, also, one may discover structures not intentionally included by the
author; such structures highly depend on one’s
knowledge, sensitivity, state of preparation etc.
From the point of view of the linguistic theory, all
these structures reflect possible sense categories
involved in the text. They are the effect of interpretative strategies operating over several levels
of the textual material. Indeed, the notion of interpretation is the key notion for understanding reading as an effective procedure over a given textual
input [Ras87], [RCA94]. It reveals that there are
many possible senses in a text, related to different
interpretations; one seeks to justify a certain sense
correlated to specific interpretational schemata
rather than to describe a supposed unique sense.
Thus, interpretation may be characterized as a
classification process. On the basis of a set of
selected textual units (lexical, grammatical, semantic, pragmatic, stylistic, narrative...) one tries
to define some classes representing semantic categories of the text. Then one tries to refine, extend
or even modify this first state of affairs in the light
of additional information gleaned through the text.
Indeed, trying to understand a given text, one
generally has to read it many times, each time
confronting previous structures to new data, import additional external information, integrate
multi-level organizations... In short, one works on
the text in a rather complex manner in order to
refine one’s comprehension, and this is done, by
giving a unified structural scheme to the information processed. From this point of view, reading
appears as a never-ending process; but clearly not
infinite. Reading is always a converging process,
where the converging point is a structural configuration of great stability. Such stability may be
formalized as the amount of structural changes
needed to establish an original class distribution.
It is clearly related to the very algorithmic competence used in the classification.
These ideas form the core of our theoretical approach. Furthermore, they make clear the motivations
of our application; it aims to assist the user in
organizing his textual material and thus to help
him in choose and refine his interpretational strategies. Here is the idea of the basic protocol: first,
the user chooses a sample of textual elements
(items) and characterizes them by a set of attributes (and associated values); then he classifies some
of them defining a group of classes on the basis of
a first and rather intuitive comprehension he initially elaborates. Then the algorithm operates on
more extended sets of textual elements and classifies them automatically into one of the defined
classes. At any moment and level, the user may
reorient classification. This interaction combines
intuitions of the user and rigorous classification
criteria in a unified scheme. Moreover, it can be
stopped at any moment – when the user judges that
the overall interpretation scheme is satisfactory.
The classes obtained furnish interesting indications for text interpretation, in so far as they operate generic semantic characterizations of large
amounts of textual elements.
2. Algorithmic issues
The main objective of our application is to predict
which semantic class a specific textual element is
in. In so far as the classes defined are assumed
disjoint, such an objective becomes equivalent to
the searching for a correct classification procedure. In our case the measurement space is completely supplied by the user; thus it represents his
own (initial) understanding. On the other hand, the
user also specifies a limited training sample: he
associates semantic classes on a subset of vector
measurements defined by the values given to the
selected attributes; no particular restrictions have
to be imposed on it at this level – in fact, it may be
set according to quite intuitive criteria; but a natural way is to choose textual inputs whose classification corresponds to basic interpretational directions.
Clearly, tree structured classifiers offer a powerful
and natural way of solving this kind of problem.
What they do is to repeatedly split every measurement sub-space into two disjoint descendant subsets – the initial being specified by the user. Terminal subsets are designated by a class label; the
split process is based on the coordinates (values)
of the measurement space and the split conditions
are extracted from the training base. The fundamental idea is to select splits such that the data in
each of the descendant nodes are “purer” than the
data in the parent node. At the end of the recursion,
each leaf must only contain textual elements of
one class. In practice, a subset is considered as
terminal if it contains few textual elements or if
most of them belong to the same semantic class.
We then obtain a maximal tree and it is necessary
to “prune” it in order to get the less complex
optimal tree which has almost the same accuracy.
The CART (Classification And Regression Trees)
algorithm that we have used is introduced in
[BFOS84] and comes from a similar methodology. Moreover, it possesses features of great value
for our purpose: generality, naturality, simplicity
and low complexity. Let us take a closer look at
how CART works in our application.
2.1. Generation of the maximum-size decision
This part of the algorithm operates on a given set
of textual elements – initially the training set; it
recursively repeats the following procedure which
finishes either in (a) regrouping, if possible, the
textual elements into a leaf or in (b) creating a node
and splitting the set of elements into two subsets.
(a) A leaf is created if one of the following conditions is satisfied:
• All the elements belong to the same class
• The number of elements is less than to N0, an
integer defined by the user. N0 quantifies the
limits of any semantic class likely to be of
interest for interpretational purposes.
• The impurity function of the set of elements
is below the impurity threshold S0, also a
user-defined number. The lower the value
returned by this function is, the more homogeneous is the set of elements (in terms of
class distribution).
(b) If (a) is not possible, then the initial set is split
into two subsets according to a test on one of the
item attributes. Since all the possible tests are not
equivalent, we use a particular criterion in order to
quantify the discriminating power of each test and
choose an optimum one. Thus a node is created,
with the chosen test associated with it. And the
items satisfying the test are sent to the left descendant of the node, and the others to the right. So,
two new (and smaller) sets of items are constructed to each of which procedure (a) is applied.
2.2. Dealing with tree complexity
The tree obtained from the previous step is very
good at classifying the items of the training set.
However, its size is large, partly because it is
overspecialized in the data of the training set.
Some of its tests may be very specific to these data,
and appear irrelevant or unnecessary when the tree
is used to classify new textual material. Indeed, it
is possible to find a smaller tree whose classification performances are equivalent to those of the
maximum-sized tree with items from the training
set, and which are even better with new training
sets. Therefore, a “pruning” method is used to
build a sequence of trees by cutting one “least
relevant” branch of the large tree after another.
This part is quite opaque for the user and is used
for optimization purposes.
2.3. Quantifying classification errors
For each tree of the final sequence, an error rate is
calculated according to the results given by the
tree in classifying the items of the testing set. The
tree with the smallest error rate is kept as the final
decision tree. Thus the user may use the error
indication in order to adjust his interpretational
schemata to the performance of the classification.
3. Implementation
Our work is divided into two main parts. The first
one is the data processing and the implementation
of the CART algorithm; the second one is the
building of a user-friendly interface. As these parts
are quite different, they may be envisaged in different programming languages.
The CART algorithm was implemented in a Prolog language (ECLiPSe). There are several reasons for this. First, Prolog is a high-level programming language allowing this type of application to
be developed with great transparency and without
major problems. It provided us with a set of powerful functions to manage data bases involved in
the CART algorithm. Secondly, we needed a data
structure to manipulate trees. Such a structure
involves nodes and leaves, so by using the list
structure of Prolog, we did not have to build up
our own library for lists. Finally, a Prolog dialect
allows easy correction of code and good verification of the algorithmic progress.
The interface was implemented in the TclTk
language. TclTk is easy and generic enough for
our purpose. Furthermore, a specific Prolog library is implemented allowing Prolog to use TclTk
functions. Therefore, the interfacing between the
two languages is quite natural and highly efficient.
The interface is divided into five parts: four windows give explicit information about training, annex (pruning), test and non-classified bases. The
first one is used for the menu bar, containing all
the functions the user would desire in interacting
with textual material.
Once a file is loaded, the first three windows are
automatically filled. All of them will be used by
the CART algorithm. Determined or random (with
a specified percentage) parts may be used in each
base. The user can act directly at all phases and on
every formal entity. For instance, he can add,
remove or modify textual input, attributes, values
and even semantic classes. Furthermore, he can
modify the training and annex bases and his action
may be reconfigurable (using the mouse or a keyboard...). He can also reconfigure most of the
visual entities of the interface.
Finally, the tree can be entirely built up visually;
the learning menu contains several options allowing the user to change tree parameters (see previous section). Once the tree is built up, the user
can select items to be classified; the results appear
in the same window. The classes obtained are the
support of generic interpretations covering the
whole textual input. Furthermore, in looking for
the path leading to a decision, the user can interpret
the classification result semantically and thus be
able to compare interpretational schemata.
4. Results and discussion
Classification is an essential issue for rationalizing
categorization effects. Thus, sense emergence and
evolution through interpretational schemata may
naturally be thought of as classification processes.
As the user always has the possibility of refining
classes, the opposition between formal classes and
semantic categories is not very sound. Even if the
latter are somehow continuous and not necessarily
disjoint, one may, by defining new classes, have
good approximations of their structural effect. On
the other hand, the extent of such an approach is
wide and its reutilisability direct.
POMMIER has already been applied to drama
monologues giving interesting results. For instance, for Tchekhov’s “Les Mefaits du Tabac” two
groups of classes have been used to explore different approaches to the subject (apparent and dissimulated) of the play, the aim and the character of
the person, of some pragmatic relations involved,
some psychological connotations etc. These depend on what idea one initially validates in order
to orient one’s interpretation. The same final classes are not obtained if one understands the whole
play as a product of fear, of an evolving battle
between frustration and the desire for freedom, of
an invocation of death or even of a rigorous calculation of the person taking advantage of the situation for personal – both intellectual and psychological – satisfaction. POMMIER offers generic
rationalizations of all these possibilities.
[BFOS84] Breiman, Friedman, Olshen, and Stone. Classification And Regression Trees.
Wadsworth and Brooks, 1984.
[Ras87] Francois Rastier. Semantique Interpretative. P.U.F., 1987.
[RCA94] Francois Rastier, Marc Cavazza, and
Anne Abeille. Semantique pour l’analyse, de
la linguistique a l’informatique. Masson,
[Tch86] A.P. Tchekhov. Theatre complet. Gallimard, Paris, 1986.

If this content appears in violation of your intellectual property rights, or you see errors or omissions, please reach out to Scott B. Weingart to discuss removing or amending the materials.

Conference Info

In review


Hosted at University of Bergen

Bergen, Norway

June 25, 1996 - June 29, 1996

147 works by 190 authors indexed

Scott Weingart has print abstract book that needs to be scanned; certain abstracts also available on dh-abstracts github page. (https://github.com/ADHO/dh-abstracts/tree/master/data)

Conference website: https://web.archive.org/web/19990224202037/www.hd.uib.no/allc-ach96.html

Series: ACH/ICCH (16), ALLC/EADH (23), ACH/ALLC (8)

Organizers: ACH, ALLC