skip to main content
10.1145/3430984.3431002acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescodsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Optimizing Interpretation Generation in Natural Language Query Answering for Real Time End Users

Published: 02 January 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Natural Language Querying over Database is gaining popularity across different use cases. Most common of them is to democratize the process of data analysis and querying of backend data to naive end users especially business users, obviating the need of knowing back end query language. Natural Language Query answering systems have thus seen widespread usage in industry too where business users want to search their own data to make business decisions. However, a common challenge faced by any natural language query answering system is generation of precise interpretations. The research community although tries to handle the problem via asking clarification questions back to the user, in industry setup this remains an ineffective solution due to various practical usage limitations. For example, it is not fair to assume any end user will be aware of the correct option to answer these clarification questions. Moreover, involving clarification questions and user feedbacks makes the system unusable by one shot API calls, which is the most intuitive usage among common use cases in industry like automated report generation. In this paper, we investigate practical ways to address the problem of precise interpretation generation. We propose novel algorithms to make use of existing technologies like Functional Partitioning of Ontology and Lazy Inclusion to solve this problem. We take our previous state-of-the-art paper ATHENA and further extend it to include our proposed methods. We test with 3 benchmark ontologies to empirically demonstrate the huge improvement over state-of-the-art results by factors of at least 400% in number of interpretation generation and also in the computation time.

References

[1]
[n.d.]. InstituteOntology. http://www.isibang.ac.in/~bisu/ontology/instOntology.owl.
[2]
[n.d.]. SoftwareOntology. http://se-on.org/.
[3]
[n.d.]. W3C. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/.
[4]
Soraya Setti Ahmed, Mimoun Malki, and Sidi Mohamed Benslimane. 2015. Ontology Partitioning: Clustering Based Approach. In I.J. ITCS. 1–11.
[5]
Jonathan Berant, Andrew Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. 2013. Semantic Parsing on Freebase from Question-Answer Pairs. In EMNLP, Vol. 2. 6.
[6]
K. Etminani, A. Rezaeian Delui, and M. Naghibzadeh. 2010. Overlapped ontology partitioning based on semantic similarity measures. In Telecommunications (IST), 2010 5th International Symposium on. 1013–1018. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTEL.2010.5734169
[7]
Jennifer Golbeck, Gilberto Fragoso, Frank Hartel, Jim Hendler, Jim Oberthaler, and Bijan Parsia. 2003. The National Cancer Institute’s Thesaurus and Ontology. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 1, 1(2003). http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/index.php/ps/article/view/27
[8]
Jiaqi Guo, Zecheng Zhan, Yan Gao, Yan Xiao, Jian-Guang Lou, Ting Liu, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019. Towards Complex Text-to-SQL in Cross-Domain Database with Intermediate Representation. In Proceeding of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). Association for Computational Linguistics.
[9]
Wei Hu, Yuanyuan Zhao, and Yuzhong Qu. 2006. The Semantic Web – ASWC. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, Chapter Partition-Based Block Matching of Large Class Hierarchies, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/11836025_8
[10]
Mandar Joshi, Uma Sawant, and Soumen Chakrabarti. 2014. Knowledge Graph and Corpus Driven Segmentation and Answer Inference for Telegraphic Entity-seeking Queries. In EMNLP. 1104–1114.
[11]
Dan Jurafsky and James H Martin. 2014. Speech and language processing. Vol. 3. Pearson.
[12]
Fei Li and H. V. Jagadish. 2014. Constructing an Interactive Natural Language Interface for Relational Databases. Proc. VLDB Endow. 8, 1 (2014), 73–84.
[13]
Fei Li and H. V. Jagadish. 2014. Constructing an Interactive Natural Language Interface for Relational Databases. Proc. VLDB Endow. 8, 1 (2014), 73–84.
[14]
Giuseppe M Mazzeo and Carlo Zaniolo. 2016. Answering Controlled Natural Language Questions on RDF Knowledge Bases. In EDBT. 608–611.
[15]
Klein Michel and Heiner Stuckenschmidt. 2004. Structure-based partitioning of large concept hierarchies(ISWC 2004). 289–303.
[16]
Ana-Maria Popescu, Oren Etzioni, and Henry Kautz. 2003. Towards a Theory of Natural Language Interfaces to Databases. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Miami, Florida, USA) (IUI ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1145/604045.604070
[17]
Ana-Maria Popescu, Oren Etzioni, and Henry Kautz. 2003. Towards a Theory of Natural Language Interfaces to Databases. In IUI.
[18]
Diptikalyan Saha, Avrilia Floratou, Karthik Sankaranarayanan, Umar Farooq Minhas, Ashish R. Mittal, and Fatma Özcan. 2016. ATHENA: An Ontology-driven System for Natural Language Querying over Relational Data Stores. Proc. VLDB Endow. 9, 12 (Aug. 2016), 1209–1220.
[19]
Anne Schlicht and Heiner Stuckenschmidt. 2007. Criteria-based Partitioning of Large Ontologies. In International Conference on Knowledge Capture(Whistler, BC, Canada) (K-CAP ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 171–172. https://doi.org/10.1145/1298406.1298439
[20]
Jaydeep Sen, Ashish Mittal, Diptikalyan Saha, and Karthik Sankaranarayanan. 2018. Functional Partitioning of Ontologies for Natural Language Query Completion in Question Answering Systems. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 4331–4337. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/602
[21]
Alane Suhr, Srinivasan Iyer, and Yoav Artzi. 2018. Learning to Map Context-Dependent Sentences to Executable Formal Queries. In NAACL-HLT.
[22]
Prasetya Utama, Nathaniel Weir, Fuat Basik, 2018. An End-to-end Neural Natural Language Interface for Databases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.00401(2018).
[23]
Xiaojun Xu, Chang Liu, and Dawn Song. 2017. SQLNet: Generating Structured Queries From Natural Language Without Reinforcement Learning. arxiv:1711.04436 [cs.CL]
[24]
Roman V. Yampolskiy. 2013. Turing Test as a Defining Feature of AI-Completeness. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 3–17.
[25]
Liang Zhang, Kun Liu, Xue Qin, and Shengqun Tang. 2011. Extracting module from OWL-DL ontology. In ICSEM, Vol. 1. 176–179. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSEM.2011.6081176
[26]
Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2017. Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.00103(2017).

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
CODS-COMAD '21: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM India Joint International Conference on Data Science & Management of Data (8th ACM IKDD CODS & 26th COMAD)
January 2021
453 pages
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 02 January 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

CODS COMAD 2021
CODS COMAD 2021: 8th ACM IKDD CODS and 26th COMAD
January 2 - 4, 2021
Bangalore, India

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 197 of 680 submissions, 29%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 42
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media