Skip to main content
Log in

Automatic Identification of Nocuous Ambiguity

  • Published:
Research on Language and Computation

Abstract

We present the concept of nocuous ambiguity, which occurs when text is interpreted differently by different readers. In contrast, text exhibits innocuous ambiguity if different readers interpret it in the same way, even though structural or semantic analyses suggest that multiple interpretations may be possible. We collect multiple human judgements of a set of English phrases obtained from requirements documents. We focus on coordination ambiguity and show that across a group of judges there may be wide variation in what is perceived to be the correct interpretation. We develop the concept of an ambiguity threshold, which expresses the amount of variation between judgements that can be tolerated. We then develop and evaluate a heuristically based method of automatically predicting which sentences may be misunderstood for a given ambiguity threshold.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal, R., & Boggess, L. (1992). A simple but useful approach to conjunct identification. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 15–21.

  • Bernth, A. (1998). EasyEnglish: Addressing structural ambiguity. In Machine Translation and the Information Soup: Proceedings of the Third Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, Vol. 1529 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 164–173). Springer-Verlag.

  • Berry, D. M., Kamsties, E., & Krieger, M. M. (2000). From contract drafting to software specification: Linguistic sources of ambiguity. Technical Report, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.

  • Boehm B.W. (1981) Software engineering economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceccato, M., Kiyavitskaya, N., Zeni, N., Mich, L., & Berry, D. M. (2004). Ambiguity identification and measurement in natural language texts. Technical Report, University of Trento.

  • Chantree, F., Nuseibeh, B., de Roeck, A., & Willis, A. (2006). Identifying nocuous ambiguities in requirements specifications. In M. Glinz & R. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering conference, pp. 59–68.

  • Emele, M. C., & Dorna, M. (1998). Ambiguity preserving machine translation using packed representations. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 365–371.

  • Friedman J., Hastie T., Tibshirani R. (2000) Additive logistic regression: A statistical view of boosting. The Annals of Statistic 38(2): 337–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grefenstette, G. (1994). Explorations in automatic thesaurus discovery. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression. Wiley series in probability and statistics. Wiley.

  • Kamsties, E., Berry, D. M., & Paech, B. (2001). Detecting ambiguities in requirements documents using inspections. In M. Lawford & D. L. Parnas (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Workshop on Inspection in Software Engineering (WISE’01), pp. 68–80.

  • Keren G. (1992) Improving decisions and judgments: The desirable versus the feasible. In: Wright G., Bolger F. (eds) Expertise and decision support. Plenum Press, New York, pp 25–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kilgarriff, A. (2003). Thesauruses for natural language processing. In C. Zong (Ed.), Proceedings of NLP-KE, Beijing, China, pp. 5–13.

  • Kilgarriff, A., Rychly, P., Smrz, P., & Tugwell, D. (2004). The sketch engine. In G. Williams & S. Vessier (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh European Association for Lexicography (EURALEX) International Congress, pp. 105–116.

  • Knight, K., & Langkilde, I. (2000). Preserving ambiguities in generation via automata intersection. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 697–702). AAAI Press/The MIT Press.

  • Lin, D. (1998). Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 768–774.

  • Manning C., Schütze H. (1999) Foundations of statistical natural language processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakov, P., & Hearst, M. (2005). Using the Web as an implicit training set: Application to structural ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL’05, pp. 835–842.

  • Okumura, A., & Muraki, K. (1994). Symmetric pattern matching analysis for English coordinate structures. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pp. 41–46.

  • Poesio, M. (1996). Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. In K. van Deemter & S. Peters (Eds.), Semantic ambiguity and underspecification (pp. 159–201). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

  • Resnik P. (1999) Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: An information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 11: 95–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Rus, V., Moldovan, D. I., & Bolohan, O. (2002). Bracketing compound nouns for logic form derivation. In Proceedings of the FLAIRS 2002 Conference, pp. 198–202.

  • Sawyer P., Rayson P., Garside R. (2002) REVERE: Support for requirements synthesis from documents. Information Systems Frontiers 4(3): 343–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schepman A., Rodway P. (2000) Prosody and parsing in coordination structures. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: A 53(2): 377–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shemtov, H. (1997). Ambiguity Management in Natural Language Generation. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, USA.

  • Spärck-Jones, K. (1986). Synonymy and semantic classification. Edinburgh University Press.

  • Sperber D., Wilson D. (1982) Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In: Smith N. (eds) Mutual knowledge. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Umarji R. (1962) Probability and statistical methods. Asia Publishing House, Bombay

    Google Scholar 

  • van Deemter K. (2004) Towards a probabilistic version of bidirectional OT syntax and semantics. Journal of Semantics 21(3): 251–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rijsbergen C.J. (1979) Information retrieval. Butterworths, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rooy, R. (2004). Relevance and bidirectional OT. In R. Blutner & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Optimality theory and pragmatics (pp. 173–210). Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave/Macmillan.

  • Wasow, T., Perfors, A., & Beaver, D. (2003). The puzzle of ambiguity. In O. Orgun & P. Sells (Eds.), Morphology and the Web of grammar: Essays in memory of Steven G. Lapointe. CSLI Publications.

  • Weiss, S. M., & Kulikowski, C. A. (1991). Computer systems that learn: Classification and prediction methods from statistics, neural nets, machine learning, and expert systems. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

  • Witten I.H., Frank E. (2005) Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (2nd edn). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alistair Willis.

About this article

Cite this article

Willis, A., Chantree, F. & De Roeck, A. Automatic Identification of Nocuous Ambiguity. Res on Lang and Comput 6, 355–374 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-008-9058-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11168-008-9058-2

Keywords

Navigation