Cruciverbalist paper review

From: Jessica Kristan Miller (jessica_at_cs.washington.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 08 2003 - 10:53:12 PST

  • Next message: X. Miao: "PROVERB--paper review"

    Paper Reviewed: Proverb: The Probabilistic Cruciverbalist
    Paper Author: Keim, Shazeer, Littman, et. al.
    Reviewed By: Jessica Miller

    Summary:

    This paper describes a system that solves crossword puzzles using AI and
    probabilistic techniques with 95.3% accuracy.

    Two Important Most Ideas:

    (1) The most novel element of this paper is how the authors cleverly
    applied several AI techniques in order to solve a hard problem quite
    accurately. The authors used probability techniques to determine measures
    like confidence and weights for possible answers, information retrieval
    techniques to take advantage of various pre-existing databases,
    probabilistic optimization to fill in the grid with target candidates, and
    hill climbing to set parameters when merging candidate information. This
    paper demonstrates how well good partitioning of a problem and appropriate
    application of techniques to the partitions can yield very good results.

    (2) The architecture of the system seems very intelligent as well. The
    division between candidate generation and grid filling seems to be a very
    intuitive way to approach the problem. The way the authors identified
    different classes of clues and then allowed their architecture to take
    advantage of this fact (through the expert modules) again seems like such
    a clean and insightful way to practically partition the problem. The type
    of architecture is also very extensible.

    Largest Flaw in the Paper:
    One thing I noticed about the authors' is that the system is very
    dependent on the CWDB. I am not sure if this is a flaw or if it is just
    inevitable, but there may be some weaknesses associated with such
    dependence. Another weakness is that some of the expert modules are
    unable to calculate actual probability distributions for the candidates
    that they generate. Although the authors claim that the merge step should
    help compensate for this, I am unclear about how much the accuracy is
    increased in that step.

    Two Open Research Questions:

    (1) One open research question is what other ways can one classify the
    clues and add new expert modules in order to incur even higher accuracy.

    (2) I find myself wondering if this type of architecture could lend itself
    to other types of nlp problems. This could possibly be another open
    research question, though, I admit I know very little about nlp much less
    canonical nlp problems that this might help.


  • Next message: X. Miao: "PROVERB--paper review"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Mon Dec 08 2003 - 10:53:13 PST