Reasoning about meaning in natural language with compact closed categories and Frobenius algebras

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139519687.011

9 - Reasoning about meaning in natural language with compact closed categories and Frobenius algebras

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2016

Dimitri Kartsaklis ,

Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh ,

Stephen Pulman and

Edited by

Ali Eskandarian and

Dimitri Kartsaklis: Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh: Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
Stephen Pulman: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Bob Coecke: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Jennifer Chubb: Affiliation:
University of San Francisco
Ali Eskandarian: Affiliation:
George Washington University, Washington DC
Valentina Harizanov: Affiliation:
George Washington University, Washington DC

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract. Compact closed categories have found applications in modeling quantum information protocols by Abramsky-Coecke. They also provide semantics for Lambek's pregroup algebras, applied to formalizing the grammatical structure of natural language, and are implicit in a distributional model of word meaning based on vector spaces. Specifically, in previous work Coecke-Clark- Sadrzadeh used the product category of pregroups with vector spaces and provided a distributional model of meaning for sentences. We recast this theory in terms of strongly monoidal functors and advance it via Frobenius algebras over vector spaces. The former are used to formalize topological quantum field theories by Atiyah and Baez-Dolan, and the latter are used to model classical data in quantum protocols by Coecke-Pavlovic-Vicary. The Frobenius algebras enable us to work in a single space in which meanings of words, phrases, and sentences of any structure live. Hence we can compare meanings of different language constructs and enhance the applicability of the theory. We report on experimental results on a number of language tasks and verify the theoretical predictions.

Introduction. Compact closed categories were first introduced by Kelly [19] in early 1970's. Some thirty years later they found applications in quantum mechanics [1], whereby the vector space foundations of quantum mechanics were recasted in a higher order language and quantum protocols such as teleportation found succinct conceptual proofs. Compact closed categories are complete with regard to a pictorial calculus [19, 35]; this calculus is used to depict and reason about information flows in entangled quantum states modeled in tensor spaces, the phenomena that were considered to be mysteries of quantum mechanics and the Achilles heel of quantum logic [4]. The pictorial calculus revealed the multi-linear algebraic level needed for proving quantum information protocols and simplified the reasoning thereof to a great extent, by hiding the underlying additive vector space structure.

Most quantum protocols rely on classical, as well as quantum, data flow. In the work of [1], this classical data flow was modeled using bi-products defined over a compact closed category. However, the pictorial calculus could not extend well to bi-products, and their categorical axiomatization was not as clear as the built-in monoidal tensor of the category.

Type: Chapter
Information: Logic and Algebraic Structures in Quantum Computing , pp. 199 - 222

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519687.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] S., Abramsky and B., Coecke, A categorical semantics of quantum protocols, Proceedings of the 19th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 2004, arXiv:quant-ph/0402130, pp. 415–425.

[2] M., Atiyah, Topological quantum field theories, Publications Mathématique de l'Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, vol. 68 (1989), pp. 175–186.Google Scholar

[3] J. C., Baez and J., Dolan, Higher-dimensional algebra and topological quantum field theory, Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 36 (1995), pp. 6073D0–6105.Google Scholar

[4] G., Birkhoff and J., von Neumann, The logic of quantum mechanics, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 35 (1936), pp. 823–843.Google Scholar

[5] A., Carboni and R. F. C., Walters, Cartesian bicategories I, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, vol. 49 (1987).Google Scholar

[6] S., Clark and S., Pulman, Combining symbolic and distributional models of meaning, Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Quantum Interaction, AAAI Press, 2007.

[7] B., Coecke and E., Paquette, Categories for the practicing physicist, New Structures for Physics (B., Coecke, editor), Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 813, Springer, 2011, pp. 167–271.

[8] B., Coecke, D., Pavlovic, and J., Vicary, A new description of orthogonal bases, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 1 (2008).Google Scholar

[9] B., Coecke, M., Sadrzadeh, and S., Clark, Mathematical foundations for distributed compositional model of meaning, Lambek Festschrift (J., van Benthem, M., Moortgat, and W., Buszkowski, editors), Linguistic Analysis, vol. 36, 2010, pp. 345–384.

[10] J., Curran, From Distributional to Semantic Similarity, Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2004.

[11] P., de Groote, Towards abstract categorial grammars, Proceedings of Association for Computational Linguistic, 2001, pp. 148–155.

[12] P., de Groote and F., Lamarche, Classical non-associative Lambek calculus, Studia Logica, vol. 71 (2002), pp. 355–388.Google Scholar

[13] J. R., Firth, A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-1955, Studies in Linguistic Analysis, (1957).Google Scholar

[14] F. G., Frobenius, Theorie der hyperkomplexen Größen, Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, (1903).

[15] E., Grefenstette and M., Sadrzadeh, Experimental support for a categorical compositional distributional model of meaning, Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2011.

[16] E., Grefenstette and M., Sadrzadeh, Experimenting with Transitive Verbs in a DisCoCat, Proceedings of Workshop on Geometrical Models of Natural Language Semantics (GEMS), 2011.

[17] E., Grefenstette, M., Sadrzadeh, S., Clark, B., Coecke, and S., Pulman, Concrete compositional sentence spaces for a compositional distributional model of meaning, International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS'11), 2011.

[18] A., Joyal and R., Street, The geometry of tensor calculus I, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 88 (1991).Google Scholar

[19] G. M., Kelly, Many-variable functorial calculus (I), Coherence in Categories (G.M., Kelly, M., Laplaza, G., Lewis, and S., MacLane, editors), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 281, Springer, 1972, pp. 66–105.

[20] A., Kock, Strong functors and monoidal monads, Archiv der Mathematik, vol. 23 (1972), pp. 113–120.Google Scholar

[21] J., Kock, Frobenius Algebras and 2D Topological Quantum Field Theories, London Mathematical Society Student Texts, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

[22] J., Lambek, The mathematics of sentence structure, American Mathematics Monthly, vol. 65 (1958), pp. 154–170.Google Scholar

[23]J., Lambek, From Word to Sentence, Polimetrica, Milan, 2008.

[24] J., Lambek and C., Casadio, Computational Algebraic Approaches to Natural Language, Polimetrica, Milan, 2006.

[25] T., Landauer and S., Dumais, A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge, Psychological Review, (1997).

[26] C. D., Manning, P., Raghavan, and H., Schütze, Introduction to Information Retrieval, Cambridge University Press, 2008.

[27] J., Mitchell and M., Lapata, Vector-based models of semantic composition, Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2008, pp. 236–244.

[28] R., Montague, English as a formal language, Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1974, pp. 189–223.

[29] M., Moortgat, Symmetric categorial grammar, Journal of Philosophical Logic, (2009), pp. 681–710.Google Scholar

[30] G., Morrill, Discontinuity in categorial grammar, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 18 (1995), pp. 175–219.Google Scholar

[31] A., Preller and J., Lambek, Free compact 2-categories, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, vol. 17 (2007), pp. 309–340.Google Scholar

[32] A., Preller and M., Sadrzadeh, Bell states and negative sentences in the distributed model of meaning, Proceedings of the 6th QPL Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 270, 2011, pp. 141–153.Google Scholar

[33] M., Sadrzadeh, E., Grefenstette, and B., Coecke, Lambek vs. Lambek: Vector Space Semantics and String Diagrams for Lambek Calculus, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 164 (2013), pp. 1079–1100.Google Scholar

[34] H., Schütze, Automatic word sense discrimination, Computational Linguistics, vol. 24 (1998), pp. 97–123.Google Scholar

[35] P., Selinger, A survey of graphical languages for monoidal categories, New Structures for Physics (B., Coecke, editor), Springer-Verlag, 2011, pp. 275–337.

Book contents

9 - Reasoning about meaning in natural language with compact closed categories and Frobenius algebras

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive