DOCSLIB.ORG

Fine-Grained Semantic Conceptualization of Framenet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-16) Fine-Grained Semantic Conceptualization of FrameNet Jin-woo Park Seung-won Hwang Haixun Wang POSTECH, Korea, Republic of Yonsei University, Korea, Republic of Facebook Inc., USA [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract for training applications such as semantic parser (Das, Mar- tins, and Smith 2012) or question answering systems (Pizzato Understanding verbs is essential for many natural language and Molla´ 2008). Yet, as shown in Table 1, the instances in tasks. To this end, large-scale lexical resources such as FrameNet, being just small samples for the FEs, are often FrameNet have been manually constructed to annotate the insufficient for supporting machine understanding. semantics of verbs (frames) and their arguments (frame ele- ments or FEs) in example sentences. Our goal is to “seman- We thus focus on “semantically conceptualizing” FE in- tically conceptualize” example sentences by connecting FEs stances. Take the EMPLOYER FE for example. Our goal is to to knowledge base (KB) concepts. For example, connecting infer that any instance of company concept is equally plausi- Employer FE to company concept in the KB enables the ble as sample companies mentioned in FrameNet. A closely understanding that any (unseen) company can also be FE examples. However, a naive adoption of existing KB con- related well-known task is “selectional preference” of com- ceptualization technique, focusing on scenarios of conceptu- puting “plausibility” scores for arbitrary instances (Resnik alizing a few terms, cannot 1) scale to many FE instances 1996). That is, our task is to find selectional preferences based (average of 29.7 instances for all FEs) and 2) leverage interde- on concepts of a knowledge base (KB). With such concep- pendence between instances and concepts. We thus propose tualization, we can infer that “Shell hires 100 workers” is a scalable k-truss clustering and a Markov Random Field plausible as Shell is an instance of company concept in the (MRF) model leveraging interdependence between concept- KB. instance, concept-concept, and instance-instance pairs. Our extensive analysis with real-life data validates that our ap- Related work To enable this inference on unobserved sen- proach improves not only the quality of the identified concepts tences, existing work uses WordNet concept (Tonelli et al. for FrameNet, but also that of applications such as selectional 2012) or topic modeling (Ritter, Mausam, and Etzioni 2010) preference. to relate the unobserved instances to the observed instances. For example, WordNet concepts identified for FEs (Tonelli et al. 2012) can infer plausibility of the unobserved instances if 1 Introduction they belong to the same concept from the observed instances. Overview Understanding verbs is critical to understanding However, WordNet concepts, being restricted to about 2,000 text. For example, the verb “employ” is associated with two concepts linked with Wikipedia pages (Bryl et al. 2012), are different semantic classes described as the USING and the often too coarse for our purpose. For example, the WordNet EMPLOYING frames: concept container, enumerating generic containers includ- ing envelope or wastebasket, is too general for Container • USING: [The few states]Agent [employed]LU [chemical FE, as it inaccurately predicts wastebasket as a plausibility weapons] . Instrument score of a cooking utensil. More desirably, we may consider using a knowledge base that materializes concepts of finer • EMPLOYING: [Hong Kong manufacturers] [employ] Employer LU granularity, e.g., cooking container for COOKING CREATION [2m workers] [in China] . Employee Place frame. In addition, a desirable KB should cover sufficient FrameNet (Fillmore, Johnson, and Petruck 2003) is a lex- instances for each concept. To argue that WordNet is limited ical resource that describes semantic frames, by annotating in terms of coverage, we analyzed English Gigaword Fifth verbs1 (i.e., lexical units or LUs) and their arguments (i.e., Edition (LDC2011T07) consisting of 180 million sentences frame elements or FEs) that evoke frames. Table 1 shows all from English news. In this corpus, WordNet covers only 33% of the FE instances for the EMPLOYING frame in FrameNet. of instances as shown in Table 2. In contrast, automatically This resource is critical for human understanding of verbs and harvested KBs such as Probase covers many instances in- cluding named entities (e.g., Microsoft and British Airways), Copyright c 2016, Association for the Advancement of Artificial which are not covered by WordNet. Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. 1Although FrameNet annotated verbs, nouns, adjectives, and Proposed method To overcome concept and instance spar- adverbs as lexical units, this paper focuses on verbs. sity of manually-built KB, we utilize on Probase (Wu et al. 2638 Table 1: Examples of FE instances in the Employing frame from FrameNet examples. Frame FE Instances british airways, factory, plant, police, housekeeper, bank, firm, executive, company, industry, airline, institute, manufacturer, defendant, woman, Employer paul, mason, man, sister, he, we, i, she, you EMPLOYING person, worker, man, staff, specialist, you, gardener, someone, woman, consultant, actor, winning, contractor, stave, architect, graduate, builder, Employee wife, artist, detective, tradesman, westwood, plaintiff, clark, labourers, outside agency, diver, officer, mark thatcher, vet, her, team Position cleaner, guide, assistant, manager, agent, gardener, aircrew 2.1 FrameNet Table 2: The coverage of FrameNet, WordNet, and Probase. 3 Nouns of several dependents such as nsubj, dobj, pobj, and FrameNet (Fillmore, Johnson, and Petruck 2003) is a iobj of the sentences from Gigagword corpus were used for database of frame semantics (Fillmore 1982). It defines lexi- this coverage test. cal units (LUs) as the pairing of words with their meanings (frames). In our running examples, employ belongs to two FrameNet WordNet Probase frames: USING and EMPLOYING. In each frame, the verb Coverage 25% 33% 75% employ has its frame elements (FEs), which can be direct syn- tactic dependents. The USING frame, for example, contains two FEs, Agent and Instrument, whose relationships 2012)2, which contains millions of fine-grained concepts au- are described in example sentences. FrameNet contains more tomatically harvested from billions of web documents. This than 190,000 annotated sentences covering about 12,000 LUs gives us the following two benefits observed in prior research: and 10,000 FEs. • Fine-grained conceptualization covers 3 million con- cepts observed on the Web. 2.2 Probase Probase (Wu et al. 2012) is a probabilistic lexical knowl- • More than 75% instances of a raw corpus (Table 2) were edge base of isA relationships that are extracted from billions already observed in Probase, and its instance coverage of web documents using syntactic patterns such as Hearst can grow indefinitely by automatic harvesting from a patterns (Hearst 1992). For example, from “... mobile com- larger corpus. pany such as a microsoft ...”, we derive the isA relationship microsoft isA mobile company. A naive baseline would be adopting existing conceptual- Bayes Probase contains isA relationships among 3 million con- ization techniques on FE instances (Song et al. 2011). cepts and 40 million instances. Furthermore, each isA rela- builds on naive Bayes model for finding concepts with the CL+Bayes tionship is associated with a variety of probabilities, weights highest posterior for the instances. extends this and scores, including the typicality scores: model to cluster before conceptualization to address: 1) het- • ( | ) erogeneity of concept, e.g., Employer can be both company P c e denotes how typical is concept c for instance e (i.e., and person, and 2) ambiguity of instance, e.g., apple. How- instance typicality score). It is computed as: n(e, c) ever, CL+Bayes targets the scenario of conceptualizing a P (c|e)= (1) n(e, c) few words, e.g., a multi-word query, and cannot 1) scale for c FE instances (average of 29.7 example instances for all FEs where n(e, c) is the frequency observed from e isA c in the in FrameNet) and 2) leverage the interdependence between corpus. Typically, P (c|e) gives higher scores to general concept-instance, concept-concept, instance-instance pairs. concepts than specific concepts. For example, we have In contrast, we propose a new model addressing these P (food|pasta)=0.177 >P(italian food|pasta)= challenges. First, while existing clustering builds on clique 0.014 in Probase. finding, which is NP-hard and sensitive to missing obser- vations, we propose an efficient clustering that is robust to • P (e|c), denotes how typical is instance e for concept c some missing observations. Second, we extend a Bayesian (i.e., concept typicality score). It is computed as: model with one-way directed graph between concept and n(e, c) ( | ) P (e|c)= (2) instance, P e c , to model the interdependence between e n(e, c) concept-concept, instance-instance, and concept-instance. P (e|c) typically gives higher scores to specific con- Our experimental evaluations show the accuracy of both cepts than general concepts. For example, we have conceptualization and selectional preference using real-life P (pasta|italian food)=0.184 >P(pasta|food)= datasets. 0.013 in Probase. 2 Preliminary 3 Existing Conceptualizations In this section, we introduce two lexical knowledge bases, In this section, we introduce
Recommended publications
  • Enriching an Explanatory Dictionary with Framenet and Propbank Corpus Examples

    Enriching an Explanatory Dictionary with Framenet and Propbank Corpus Examples

    Proceedings of eLex 2019 Enriching an Explanatory Dictionary with FrameNet and PropBank Corpus Examples Pēteris Paikens 1, Normunds Grūzītis 2, Laura Rituma 2, Gunta Nešpore 2, Viktors Lipskis 2, Lauma Pretkalniņa2, Andrejs Spektors 2 1 Latvian Information Agency LETA, Marijas street 2, Riga, Latvia 2 Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Latvia, Raina blvd. 29, Riga, Latvia E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract This paper describes ongoing work to extend an online dictionary of Latvian – Tezaurs.lv – with representative semantically annotated corpus examples according to the FrameNet and PropBank methodologies and word sense inventories. Tezaurs.lv is one of the largest open lexical resources for Latvian, combining information from more than 300 legacy dictionaries and other sources. The corpus examples are extracted from Latvian FrameNet and PropBank corpora, which are manually annotated parallel subsets of a balanced text corpus of contemporary Latvian. The proposed approach augments traditional lexicographic information with modern cross-lingually interpretable information and enables analysis of word senses from the perspective of frame semantics, which is substantially different from (complementary to) the traditional approach applied in Latvian lexicography. In cases where FrameNet and PropBank corpus evidence aligns well with the word sense split in legacy dictionaries, the frame-semantically annotated corpus examples supplement the word sense information with clarifying usage examples and commonly used semantic valence patterns. However, the annotated corpus examples often provide evidence of a different sense split, which is often more coarse-grained and, thus, may help dictionary users to cluster and comprehend a fine-grained sense split suggested by the legacy sources.
  • WELDA: Enhancing Topic Models by Incorporating Local Word Context

    WELDA: Enhancing Topic Models by Incorporating Local Word Context

    WELDA: Enhancing Topic Models by Incorporating Local Word Context Stefan Bunk Ralf Krestel Hasso Plattner Institute Hasso Plattner Institute Potsdam, Germany Potsdam, Germany [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT The distributional hypothesis states that similar words tend to have similar contexts in which they occur. Word embedding models exploit this hypothesis by learning word vectors based on the local context of words. Probabilistic topic models on the other hand utilize word co-occurrences across documents to identify topically related words. Due to their complementary nature, these models define different notions of word similarity, which, when combined, can produce better topical representations. In this paper we propose WELDA, a new type of topic model, which combines word embeddings (WE) with latent Dirichlet allo- cation (LDA) to improve topic quality. We achieve this by estimating topic distributions in the word embedding space and exchanging selected topic words via Gibbs sampling from this space. We present an extensive evaluation showing that WELDA cuts runtime by at least 30% while outperforming other combined approaches with Figure 1: Illustration of an LDA topic in the word embed- respect to topic coherence and for solving word intrusion tasks. ding space. The gray isolines show the learned probability distribution for the topic. Exchanging topic words having CCS CONCEPTS low probability in the embedding space (red minuses) with • Information systems → Document topic models; Document high probability words (green pluses), leads to a superior collection models; • Applied computing → Document analysis; LDA topic. KEYWORDS word by the company it keeps” [11]. In other words, if two words topic models, word embeddings, document representations occur in similar contexts, they are similar.
  • Generative Topic Embedding: a Continuous Representation of Documents

    Generative Topic Embedding: a Continuous Representation of Documents

    Generative Topic Embedding: a Continuous Representation of Documents Shaohua Li1,2 Tat-Seng Chua1 Jun Zhu3 Chunyan Miao2 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 1. School of Computing, National University of Singapore 2. Joint NTU-UBC Research Centre of Excellence in Active Living for the Elderly (LILY) 3. Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University Abstract as continuous vectors in a low-dimensional em- bedding space (Bengio et al., 2003; Mikolov et al., Word embedding maps words into a low- 2013; Pennington et al., 2014; Levy et al., 2015). dimensional continuous embedding space The learned embedding for a word encodes its by exploiting the local word collocation semantic/syntactic relatedness with other words, patterns in a small context window. On by utilizing local word collocation patterns. In the other hand, topic modeling maps docu- each method, one core component is the embed- ments onto a low-dimensional topic space, ding link function, which predicts a word’s distri- by utilizing the global word collocation bution given its context words, parameterized by patterns in the same document. These their embeddings. two types of patterns are complementary. When it comes to documents, we wish to find a In this paper, we propose a generative method to encode their overall semantics. Given topic embedding model to combine the the embeddings of each word in a document, we two types of patterns. In our model, topics can imagine the document as a “bag-of-vectors”. are represented by embedding vectors, and Related words in the document point in similar di- are shared across documents.
  • Developing a Large Scale Framenet for Italian: the Iframenet Experience

    Developing a Large Scale Framenet for Italian: the Iframenet Experience

    Developing a large scale FrameNet for Italian: the IFrameNet experience Roberto Basili° Silvia Brambilla§ Danilo Croce° Fabio Tamburini§ ° § Dept. of Enterprise Engineering Dept. of Classic Philology and Italian Studies University of Rome Tor Vergata University of Bologna {basili,croce}@info.uniroma2.it [email protected], [email protected] ian Portuguese, German, Spanish, Japanese, Swe- Abstract dish and Korean. All these projects are based on the idea that English. This paper presents work in pro- most of the Frames are the same among languages gress for the development of IFrameNet, a and that, thanks to this, it is possible to adopt large-scale, computationally oriented, lexi- Berkeley’s Frames and FEs and their relations, cal resource based on Fillmore’s frame se- with few changes, once all the language-specific mantics for Italian. For the development of information has been cut away (Tonelli et al. 2009, IFrameNet linguistic analysis, corpus- Tonelli 2010). processing and machine learning techniques With regard to Italian, over the past ten years are combined in order to support the semi- several research projects have been carried out at automatic development and annotation of different universities and Research Centres. In par- the resource. ticular, the ILC-CNR in Pisa (e.g. Lenci et al. 2008; Johnson and Lenci 2011), FBK in Trento (e.g. Italiano. Questo articolo presenta un work Tonelli et al. 2009, Tonelli 2010) and the Universi- in progress per lo sviluppo di IFrameNet, ty of Rome, Tor Vergata (e.g. Pennacchiotti et al. una risorsa lessicale ad ampia copertura, 2008, Basili et al.
  • Linked Data Triples Enhance Document Relevance Classification

    Linked Data Triples Enhance Document Relevance Classification

    applied sciences Article Linked Data Triples Enhance Document Relevance Classification Dinesh Nagumothu * , Peter W. Eklund , Bahadorreza Ofoghi and Mohamed Reda Bouadjenek School of Information Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia; [email protected] (P.W.E.); [email protected] (B.O.); [email protected] (M.R.B.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Standardized approaches to relevance classification in information retrieval use generative statistical models to identify the presence or absence of certain topics that might make a document relevant to the searcher. These approaches have been used to better predict relevance on the basis of what the document is “about”, rather than a simple-minded analysis of the bag of words contained within the document. In more recent times, this idea has been extended by using pre-trained deep learning models and text representations, such as GloVe or BERT. These use an external corpus as a knowledge-base that conditions the model to help predict what a document is about. This paper adopts a hybrid approach that leverages the structure of knowledge embedded in a corpus. In particular, the paper reports on experiments where linked data triples (subject-predicate-object), constructed from natural language elements are derived from deep learning. These are evaluated as additional latent semantic features for a relevant document classifier in a customized news- feed website. The research is a synthesis of current thinking in deep learning models in NLP and information retrieval and the predicate structure used in semantic web research. Our experiments Citation: Nagumothu, D.; Eklund, indicate that linked data triples increased the F-score of the baseline GloVe representations by 6% P.W.; Ofoghi, B.; Bouadjenek, M.R.
  • Document and Topic Models: Plsa

    Document and Topic Models: Plsa

    10/4/2018 Document and Topic Models: pLSA and LDA Andrew Levandoski and Jonathan Lobo CS 3750 Advanced Topics in Machine Learning 2 October 2018 Outline • Topic Models • pLSA • LSA • Model • Fitting via EM • pHITS: link analysis • LDA • Dirichlet distribution • Generative process • Model • Geometric Interpretation • Inference 2 1 10/4/2018 Topic Models: Visual Representation Topic proportions and Topics Documents assignments 3 Topic Models: Importance • For a given corpus, we learn two things: 1. Topic: from full vocabulary set, we learn important subsets 2. Topic proportion: we learn what each document is about • This can be viewed as a form of dimensionality reduction • From large vocabulary set, extract basis vectors (topics) • Represent document in topic space (topic proportions) 푁 퐾 • Dimensionality is reduced from 푤푖 ∈ ℤ푉 to 휃 ∈ ℝ • Topic proportion is useful for several applications including document classification, discovery of semantic structures, sentiment analysis, object localization in images, etc. 4 2 10/4/2018 Topic Models: Terminology • Document Model • Word: element in a vocabulary set • Document: collection of words • Corpus: collection of documents • Topic Model • Topic: collection of words (subset of vocabulary) • Document is represented by (latent) mixture of topics • 푝 푤 푑 = 푝 푤 푧 푝(푧|푑) (푧 : topic) • Note: document is a collection of words (not a sequence) • ‘Bag of words’ assumption • In probability, we call this the exchangeability assumption • 푝 푤1, … , 푤푁 = 푝(푤휎 1 , … , 푤휎 푁 ) (휎: permutation) 5 Topic Models: Terminology (cont’d) • Represent each document as a vector space • A word is an item from a vocabulary indexed by {1, … , 푉}. We represent words using unit‐basis vectors.
  • Improving Distributed Word Representation and Topic Model by Word-Topic Mixture Model

    Improving Distributed Word Representation and Topic Model by Word-Topic Mixture Model

    JMLR: Workshop and Conference Proceedings 63:190–205, 2016 ACML 2016 Improving Distributed Word Representation and Topic Model by Word-Topic Mixture Model Xianghua Fu [email protected] Ting Wang [email protected] Jing Li [email protected] Chong Yu [email protected] Wangwang Liu [email protected] College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University, Guangdong China Editors: Robert J. Durrant and Kee-Eung Kim Abstract We propose a Word-Topic Mixture(WTM) model to improve word representation and topic model simultaneously. Firstly, it introduces the initial external word embeddings into the Topical Word Embeddings(TWE) model based on Latent Dirichlet Allocation(LDA) model to learn word embeddings and topic vectors. Then the results learned from TWE are inte- grated in the LDA by defining the probability distribution of topic vectors-word embeddings according to the idea of latent feature model with LDA (LFLDA), meanwhile minimizing the KL divergence of the new topic-word distribution function and the original one. The experimental results prove that the WTM model performs better on word representation and topic detection compared with some state-of-the-art models. Keywords: topic model, distributed word representation, word embedding, Word-Topic Mixture model 1. Introduction Probabilistic topic model is one of the most common topic detection methods. Topic mod- eling algorithms, such as LDA(Latent Dirichlet Allocation) Blei et al. (2003) and related methods Blei (2011), infer probability distributions from frequency statistic, which can only reflect the co-occurrence relationships of words. The semantic information is less considered. Recently, distributed word representations with NNLM(neural network language model) Bengio et al.
  • Integrating Wordnet and Framenet Using a Knowledge-Based Word Sense Disambiguation Algorithm

    Integrating Wordnet and Framenet Using a Knowledge-Based Word Sense Disambiguation Algorithm

    Integrating WordNet and FrameNet using a knowledge-based Word Sense Disambiguation algorithm Egoitz Laparra and German Rigau IXA group. University of the Basque Country, Donostia {egoitz.laparra,german.rigau}@ehu.com Abstract coherent groupings of words belonging to the same frame. This paper presents a novel automatic approach to In that way we expect to extend the coverage of FrameNet partially integrate FrameNet and WordNet. In that (by including from WordNet closely related concepts), to way we expect to extend FrameNet coverage, to en- enrich WordNet with frame semantic information (by port- rich WordNet with frame semantic information and ing frame information to WordNet) and possibly to extend possibly to extend FrameNet to languages other than FrameNet to languages other than English (by exploiting English. The method uses a knowledge-based Word local wordnets aligned to the English WordNet). Sense Disambiguation algorithm for linking FrameNet WordNet1 [12] (hereinafter WN) is by far the most lexical units to WordNet synsets. Specifically, we ex- ploit a graph-based Word Sense Disambiguation algo- widely-used knowledge base. In fact, WN is being rithm that uses a large-scale knowledge-base derived used world-wide for anchoring different types of seman- from WordNet. We have developed and tested four tic knowledge including wordnets for languages other than additional versions of this algorithm showing a sub- English [4], domain knowledge [17] or ontologies like stantial improvement over previous results. SUMO [22] or the EuroWordNet Top Concept Ontology [3]. It contains manually coded information about En- glish nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs and is organized around the notion of a synset.
  • Topic Modeling: Beyond Bag-Of-Words

    Topic Modeling: Beyond Bag-Of-Words

    Topic Modeling: Beyond Bag-of-Words Hanna M. Wallach [email protected] Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK Abstract While such models may use conditioning contexts of arbitrary length, this paper deals only with bigram Some models of textual corpora employ text models—i.e., models that predict each word based on generation methods involving n-gram statis- the immediately preceding word. tics, while others use latent topic variables inferred using the “bag-of-words” assump- To develop a bigram language model, marginal and tion, in which word order is ignored. Pre- conditional word counts are determined from a corpus viously, these methods have not been com- w. The marginal count Ni is defined as the number bined. In this work, I explore a hierarchi- of times that word i has occurred in the corpus, while cal generative probabilistic model that in- the conditional count Ni|j is the number of times word corporates both n-gram statistics and latent i immediately follows word j. Given these counts, the topic variables by extending a unigram topic aim of bigram language modeling is to develop pre- model to include properties of a hierarchi- dictions of word wt given word wt−1, in any docu- cal Dirichlet bigram language model. The ment. Typically this is done by computing estimators model hyperparameters are inferred using a of both the marginal probability of word i and the con- Gibbs EM algorithm. On two data sets, each ditional probability of word i following word j, such as of 150 documents, the new model exhibits fi = Ni/N and fi|j = Ni|j/Nj, where N is the num- better predictive accuracy than either a hi- ber of words in the corpus.
  • The Hebrew Framenet Project

    The Hebrew Framenet Project

    The Hebrew FrameNet Project Avi Hayoun, Michael Elhadad Dept. of Computer Science Ben-Gurion University Beer Sheva, Israel {hayounav,elhadad}@cs.bgu.ac.il Abstract We present the Hebrew FrameNet project, describe the development and annotation processes and enumerate the challenges we faced along the way. We have developed semi-automatic tools to help speed the annotation and data collection process. The resource currently covers 167 frames, 3,000 lexical units and about 500 fully annotated sentences. We have started training and testing automatic SRL tools on the seed data. Keywords: FrameNet, Hebrew, frame semantics, semantic resources 1. Introduction frames and their structures in natural language. Recent years have seen growing interest in the task 1.2. FrameNet in Other Languages of Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) of natural language The original FrameNet project has been adapted and text (sometimes called “shallow semantic parsing”). ported to multiple languages. The most active interna- The task is usually described as the act of identify- tional FrameNet teams include the Swedish FrameNet ing the semantic roles, which are the set of semantic (SweFN) covering close to 1,200 frames with 34K LUs properties and relationships defined over constituents (Ahlberg et al., 2014); the Japanese FrameNet (JFN) of a sentence, given a semantic context. with 565 frames, 8,500 LUs and 60K annotated ex- The creation of resources that document the realiza- ample sentences (Ohara, 2013); and FrameNet Brazil tion of semantic roles in natural language texts, such (FN-Br) covering 179 frames, 196 LUs and 12K anno- as FrameNet (Fillmore and Baker, 2010; Ruppenhofer tated sentences (Torrent and Ellsworth, 2013).
  • INF5830 Introduction to Semantic Role Labeling

    INF5830 Introduction to Semantic Role Labeling

    INF5830 Introduction to Semantic Role Labeling Andrey Kutuzov University of Oslo Language Technology Group With thanks to Lilja Øvrelid, Martha Palmer and Dan Jurafsky INF5830 Introduction to Semantic Role Labeling 1(36) Semantic Role Labeling INF5830 Introduction to Semantic Role Labeling 2(36) Introduction Contents Introduction Semantic roles in general PropBank: Proto-roles FrameNet: Frame Semantics Summary INF5830 Introduction to Semantic Role Labeling 2(36) Introduction Semantics I Study of meaning, expressed in language; I Morphemes, words, phrases, sentences; I Lexical semantics; I Sentence semantics; I (Pragmatics: how the context affects meaning). INF5830 Introduction to Semantic Role Labeling 3(36) Introduction Semantics I Linguistic knowledge: meaning I Meaningful or not: I Word { flick vs blick I Sentence { John swims vs John metaphorically every I Several meanings (WSD): I Words { fish I Sentence { John saw the man with the binoculars I Same meaning (semantic similarity): I Word { sofa vs couch I Sentence { John gave Hannah a gift vs John gave a gift to Hannah I Truth conditions: I All kings are male I Molybdenum conducts electricity I Entailment: I Alfred murdered the librarian I The librarian is dead I Participant roles: John is the `giver', Hannah is the `receiver' INF5830 Introduction to Semantic Role Labeling 4(36) Introduction Representing events I We want to understand the event described by these sentences: 1. IBM bought Spark 2. IBM acquired Spark 3. Spark was acquired by IBM 4. The owners of Spark sold it to IBM I Dependency parsing is insufficient. UDPipe will give us simple relations between verbs and arguments: 1. (buy, nsubj, IBM), (buy, obj, Spark) 2.
  • Using Frame Semantics in Natural Language Processing

    Using Frame Semantics in Natural Language Processing

    Using Frame Semantics in Natural Language Processing Apoorv Agarwal Daniel Bauer Owen Rambow Dept. of Computer Science Dept. of Computer Science CCLS Columbia University Columbia University Columbia University New York, NY New York, NY New York, NY [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract the notion of a social event (Agarwal et al., 2010), We summarize our experience using a particular kind of event which involves (at least) FrameNet in two rather different projects two people such that at least one of them is aware in natural language processing (NLP). of the other person. If only one person is aware We conclude that NLP can benefit from of the event, we call it Observation (OBS): for FrameNet in different ways, but we sketch example, someone is talking about someone else some problems that need to be overcome. in their absence. If both people are aware of the event, we call it Interaction (INR): for example, 1 Introduction one person is telling the other a story. Our claim We present two projects at Columbia in which we is that links in social networks are in fact made use FrameNet. In these projects, we do not de- up of social events: OBS social events give rise velop basic NLP tools for FrameNet, and we do to one-way links, and INR social events to two- not develop FramNets for new languages: we sim- way links. For more information, see (Agarwal ply use FrameNet or a FrameNet parser in an NLP and Rambow, 2010; Agarwal et al., 2013a; Agar- application.