No abstract

Many requirements documents are written in natural language (NL). However, with the flexibility of NL comes the risk of introducing unwanted ambiguities in the requirements and misunderstandings between stakeholders. In this paper, we describe an automated approach to identify potentially nocuous ambiguity, which occurs when text is interpreted differently by different readers. We concentrate on anaphoric ambiguity, which occurs when readers may disagree on how pronouns should be interpreted.We describe a number of heuristics, each of which captures information that may lead a reader to favour a particular interpretation of the text. We use these heuristics to build a classifier, which in turn predicts the degree to which particular interpretations are preferred. We collected multiple human judgements on the interpretation of requirements exhibiting anaphoric ambiguity, and show how the distribution of these judgements can be used to assess whether a particular instance of ambiguity is nocuous. Given a requirements document written in natural language, our approach can identify sentences which contain anaphoric ambiguity, and use the classifier to alert the requirements writer of text that runs the risk of misinterpretation.We report on a series of experiments that we conducted to evaluate the performance of the automated system we developed to support our approach. The results show that the system achieves high recall with a consistent improvement on baseline precision subject to some ambiguity tolerance levels, allowing us to explore and highlight realistic and potentially problematic ambiguities in actual requirements documents.

No abstract

Natural language is prevalent in requirements documents. However, ambiguity is an intrinsic phenomenon of natural language, and is therefore present in all such documents. Ambiguity occurs when a sentence can be interpreted differently by different readers. In this paper, we describe an automated approach for characterizing and detecting so-called nocuous ambiguities, which carry a high risk of misunderstanding among different readers. Given a natural language requirements document, sentences that contain specific types of ambiguity are first extracted automatically from the text. A machine learning algorithm is then used to determine whether an ambiguous sentence is nocuous or innocuous, based on a set of heuristics that draw on human judgments, which we collected as training data. We implemented a prototype tool for Nocuous Ambiguity Identification (NAI), in order to illustrate and evaluate our approach. The tool focuses on coordination ambiguity. We report on the results of a set of experiments to assess the performance and usefulness of the approach.

We describe the Open University team’s submission to the 2011 i2b2/VA/Cincinnati Medical Natural Language Processing Challenge, Track 2 Shared Task for sentiment analysis in suicide notes. This Shared Task focused on the development of automatic systems that identify, at the sentence level, affective text of 15 specific emotions from suicide notes. We propose a hybrid model that incorporates a number of natural language processing techniques, including lexicon-based keyword spotting, CRF-based emotion cue identification, and machine learning-based emotion classification. The results generated by different techniques are integrated using different vote-based merging strategies. The automated system performed well against the manually-annotated gold standard, and achieved encouraging results with a micro-averaged F-measure score of 61.39% in textual emotion recognition, which was ranked 1st place out of 24 participant teams in this challenge. The results demonstrate that effective emotion recognition by an automated system is possible when a large annotated corpus is available.