Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Grounding 'Grounding' in NLP

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2106.02192 v1 pith:3EHAMKHO submitted 2021-06-04 cs.CL

Grounding 'Grounding' in NLP

classification cs.CL
keywords groundingtaskscognitivecommunitycurrentdefinitionrecentscience
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The NLP community has seen substantial recent interest in grounding to facilitate interaction between language technologies and the world. However, as a community, we use the term broadly to reference any linking of text to data or non-textual modality. In contrast, Cognitive Science more formally defines "grounding" as the process of establishing what mutual information is required for successful communication between two interlocutors -- a definition which might implicitly capture the NLP usage but differs in intent and scope. We investigate the gap between these definitions and seek answers to the following questions: (1) What aspects of grounding are missing from NLP tasks? Here we present the dimensions of coordination, purviews and constraints. (2) How is the term "grounding" used in the current research? We study the trends in datasets, domains, and tasks introduced in recent NLP conferences. And finally, (3) How to advance our current definition to bridge the gap with Cognitive Science? We present ways to both create new tasks or repurpose existing ones to make advancements towards achieving a more complete sense of grounding.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.