<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P06-2099">
  <Title>Compiling a Lexicon of Cooking Actions for Animation Generation</Title>
  <Section position="4" start_page="774" end_page="775" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Compilation of the Lexicon of Basic
Actions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> After defining the set of basic actions for the lexicon, the information of each basic action must be described. As shown in Figure 2, the main features in our lexicon are expression, action plan, ingredient examples and ingredient requirement.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The term expression stands for linguistic expressions of basic actions, while ingredient examples stands for examples of ingredients described in the cooking manuals we referred to when defining the set of basic actions. As shown in Table 1, these two features have already been included in the initial lexicon created by the procedure in Section 3.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> This section describes the compilation of the rest of the features: action plan in Subsection 4.1 and ingredient requirement in Subsection 4.2.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="774" end_page="774" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.1 Action Plan
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> For each basic action in the lexicon, the action plan to generate the corresponding animation is described. Action plan is the sequence of action primitives as shown in Figure 2. Of the 298 basic actions in the lexicon, we have currently described action plans for only 80 actions. Most of them are actions to cut something.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> We have also started to develop Animation Generator (see Figure 1), which is the module that interprets action plans and generates animations. We  by our system.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Our current focus has been on the design and development of the lexicon of cooking actions, rather than on animation generation. Implementation of the complete Animation Generator as well as a description of the action plans for all basic actions in the lexicon are important future works.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="774" end_page="775" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.2 Ingredient Requirement
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Several basic actions have the same expression in our lexicon. For instance, in Figure 1, there are three basic actions represented by the same linguistic expression &amp;quot;X` ~tb(cut into a comb shape)&amp;quot;. These three actions stand for different cooking actions. The first one stands for the action used to cut something like a &amp;quot;tomato&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;potato&amp;quot; into a comb shape. The second stands for the following sequence of actions: first cut something in half, remove its core or seeds, and cut it into a comb shape. This action is taken on pumpkin, for instance. The third action represents the cooking action for &amp;quot;turnip&amp;quot;: remove the leaves of the turnip and cut it into a comb shape. In other words, there are different ways to cut different in- null gredients into a comb shape. Differences among these actions depend on what kinds of ingredients aretobecut.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> As described in Section 2.2, the module Action Matcher accepts a sentence or phrase for which a user wants to see the animation, then finds a corresponding basic action from the lexicon. In order to find an appropriate basic action for a recipe sentence, the lexicon of cooking actions should include information about what kinds of ingredients are acceptable for each basic action. Note that the judgment as to whether an ingredient is suitable or not highly depends on its features such as kind, shape, and components (seed, peel etc.) of the ingredient. Therefore, the lexicon should include information about what features of the ingredients must be operated upon by the basic actions.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> For the above reason, ingredient requirement was introduced in the lexicon of cooking actions.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> In this field, we manually describe the required features of ingredients for each basic action. Figure 4 illustrates the three basic actions ofX` ~tb(chop into a comb shape) in the lexicon  . The basic action a1, &amp;quot;kind=vegetable, shape=sphere&amp;quot; in ingredient requirement, means that only a vegetable whose shape is spherical is acceptable as an ingredient for this cooking action. On the other hand, for the basic action a2, only a vegetable whose shape is spherical and containing seeds is acceptable. For a3, &amp;quot;instance= (turnip)&amp;quot; means that only a turnip is suitable for this action. In our lexicon, such specific cooking actions are also included when the reference cookbooks illustrate special cooking actions for certain ingredients. In this case, a cookbook illustrates cutting a turnip into a comb shape in a different way than for other ingredients.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4">  Here are all the attributes and possible values prepared for the ingredient requirement field: * kind This attribute specifies kinds of ingredients.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> The possible values are: vegetable, mushroom, fruit, meat, fish, shellfish, seafood, condiment &amp;quot;Seafood&amp;quot; means seafood other than fish or shellfish, such as(squid),(cod roe) and so on.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6">  action plan is omitted in Figure 4.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> * veg This attribute specifies subtypes of vegetables. Possible values for this attribute are &amp;quot;green&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;root&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;layer&amp;quot;. &amp;quot;Green&amp;quot; stands for green vegetables such asO (spinach) and (J(Chinese cabbage).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> &amp;quot;Root&amp;quot; stands for root vegetables such as aUM(potato) and]O(burdock).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> &amp;quot;Layer&amp;quot; stands for vegetables consisting of layers of edible leaves such as(lettuce) and(cabbage).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> * shape This attribute specifies shapes of ingredients. The possible values are: sphere, stick, cube, oval, plate, filiform * peel, seed, core These attributes specify various components of ingredients. Values are always 1. For example, &amp;quot;peel=1&amp;quot; stands for ingredients with peel.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="775" end_page="777" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
* instance
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> This specifies a certain ingredient, as shown in basic action a3 in Figure 4.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The information about ingredient requirements was added for 186 basic actions out of the 298 actions in the lexicon. No requirement was needed for the other actions, i.e., these actions accept any kind of ingredients.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  Inaddition tothe lexicon of cooking actions, the lexicon of ingredients is also required for our system. It includes ingredients and their features such as kind, shape and components. We believe that this is domain-specific knowledge for the cooking domain. Thesauri or other general-purpose language resources would not provide such information. Therefore, we newly compiled the lexicon of ingredients, which consists of only those ingredients appearing in the ingredients example in the lexicon of cooking actions. The number of ingredients included in the lexicon is 93. Foreach entry, features of the ingredient are described. The feature set used for this lexicon is the same as that for the ingredient requirement described in 4.2.1, except for the &amp;quot;instance&amp;quot; attribute.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3">  ~tb(cut into a comb shape)&amp;quot; The current lexicon of ingredients is too small. Only 93 ingredients are included. A larger lexicon is required to handle various recipe sentences. In order to enlarge the lexicon of ingredients, we will investigate a method for the automatically acquisition of new ingredients with their features from a collection of recipe documents.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> 5 Matching between Actions in a Recipe and the Lexicon Action Matcher in Figure 1 is the module which accepts a recipe sentence and finds a basic action corresponding to it from the lexicon. One of the biggest difficulties in developing this module is that linguistic expressions in a recipe may differ from those in the lexicon. So we have to consider a flexible matching algorithm between them.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> To construct Action Matcher, we refer to the verbal phrases classified in (b2) in Table 2. Note that the linguistic expressions of these verbal phrases are inconsistent withthe expressions in the lexicon. We examined the major causes of inconsistency for these verbal phrases. In this paper, we will report the result of our analysis, and suggest some possible ways to find the equivalent action even when the linguistic expressions in a recipe and the lexicon are different. The realization of Action Matcher still remains as future work.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Figure 5 shows some examples of observed inconsistency in linguistic expressions. In Figure 5, the left hand side represents verbal phrases in recipes, while the right hand side represents expressions in the lexicon of cooking actions. A slash indicates word segmentation. Causes of inconsistency in linguistic expressions are classified as follows: * Inconsistency in word segmentation Word segmentation of verbal phrases in recipes, as automatically given by a morphological analyzer, is different from one of the basic actions in the lexicon, as shown in Figure 5 (a).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> In order to succeed in matching, we need an operation to concatenate two or more morphemes in a phrase or to divide a morpheme into to two or more, then try to check the equivalence of both expressions.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> * Inconsistency in case fillers Verbs in a recipe and the lexicon agree, but their case fillers are different. For instance, in Figure 5 (b), the verb &amp;quot;~(sprinkle)&amp;quot; is the same, but the accusative case fillers &amp;quot;\ (chili)&amp;quot; and&amp;quot;(salt)&amp;quot; are different. Inthis case, we can regard both as representing the same action: to sprinkle a kind of condiment.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> In this case, the lexicon of ingredients (see 4.2.2) would be helpful for matching. That is, if both\ (chili) and(salt) have the same feature &amp;quot;kind=condiment&amp;quot; in the lexicon of ingredients, we can judge that the phrase &amp;quot;\ //~(sprinkle chili)&amp;quot; corresponds to the basic action &amp;quot;//~ (sprinkle salt)&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> * Inconsistency in verbs Disagreement between verbs in a recipe and the lexicon is one of the major causes of inconsistency. See Figure 5 (c), for instance.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11">  These two phrases represent the same action null  , but the linguistic expressions are totally different.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> In this case, the matching between them is rather difficult. One solution would be to describe all equivalent expressions for each action in the lexicon. Since it is not realistic to list equivalent expressions exhaustively, however, we want to automatically collect pairs of equivalent expressions from a large recipe corpus.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="777" end_page="777" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
6Conclusion
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> In this paper, we have described the basic idea for a system to generate animations for cooking actions in recipes. Although the system is not yet complete and much work still remains to be done, the main contribution of this paper is to show the direction for improving the scalability of the system. First, we designed a lexicon of cooking actions including information about action plans and ingredient requirements, which are needed to generate the appropriate cooking animations. We also showed that our lexicon covers most of the cooking actions appearing in recipes. Furthermore, we analyzed the recipe corpus and investigated how to match actions in a recipe to the corresponding basic action in the lexicon, even when they have different linguistic expressions. Such a flexible matching method would also increase the scalability of the system.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>