Tolerance-based granular methods: Foundations and applications in natural language processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural Language processing (NLP) derives its roots from artificial intelligence and computational linguistics. The proliferation of large-scale web corpora and social media data as well as advances in machine learning and deep learning have led to practical applications in diverse NLP areas such as machine translation, information extraction, named entity recognition (NER), text summarization and sentiment analysis. Named-entity recognition (NER), is a sub task of information extraction that seeks to discover and categorize specific entities such as nouns or relations in unstructured text. In this paper, we present a review of the foundations three tolerance-based granular computing methods (rough sets, fuzzy-rough sets and near sets) for representing structured (documents) and unstructured (linguistic entities) text. Applications of these methods are presented via semi-supervised and supervised learning algorithms in labelling relational facts from web corpora and sentiment classification (non-topic based text). The performance of the three presented algorithms is discussed in terms of bench marked datasets and algorithms. We make the case that tolerance relations provide an ideal framework for studying the concept of similarity for text-based applications. The aim of our work is to demonstrate that approximation structures viewed through the prism of tolerance have a great deal of fluidity and integrate conceptual structures at different levels of granularity thereby facilitating learning in the presented NLP applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".