DOCSLIB.ORG

Lexical Acquisition Via Constraint Solving *

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lexical Acquisition Via Constraint Solving * From: AAAI Technical Report SS-95-01. Compilation copyright © 1995, AAAI (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. Lexical Acquisition via Constraint Solving * Ted Pedersen Weidong Chen Departmentof ComputerScience & Engineering SouthernMethodist University Dallas,TX 75275 {pedersen, wchen}eseas, smu. edu Abstract havea solution.Otherwise, constraints are inferred forunknown words that will make the sentencevalid. This paperdescribes a methodto auto- We choose to use Link Grammar[Sleatorand maticallyacquire the syntacticand se- Temperley,1991] as it providesa convenientmeans manticclassifications of unknown words. for expressingbidirectional constraints. Among the Our methodreduces the searchspace of otherframeworks we have investigatedwere Depen- thelexical acquisition problem by utiliz- dency Grammar[Mel~uk, 1988], Categorial Gram- ingboth the left and the right context of mar [Oehrleet aI., 1988],and WordGrammar [Hud- the unknownword. Link Grammarpro- son,1984] all of whichare lexically-based.We se- ridesa convenientframework in whichto lectedLink Grammar due to itsexplicit use of right implementour method. andleft context and the availability of an implemen- tationthat includes a 24,000word lexicon. However, our approachis applicableto any systemthat inte- 1 Introduction gratesbidirectional constraints explicitly in the lex- A robustNatural Language Processing (NLP) sys- icon. tem mustbe ableto processsentences that contain Thispaper begins with an introductionto Link wordsunknown to its lexicon.The syntacticand Grammar.We describethe processof acquiringthe semanticproperties of unknownwords are derived syntaxof unknownwords and outlinethe processof fromthose of knownwords in a sentence,assuming semanticacquisition. We close with a discussionof thatthe given sentence is valid. related work and our plans for the future. Theunderlying linguistic framework plays a criti- calrole in lexicalacquisition. Linguistic frameworks 2 Link Grammar canbe broadlyclassified into two groups: those with phrasestructure rules and thosewithout. The lexi- Link Grammar[Sleator and Temperley, 1991] is a con of knownwords and any phrasestructure rules context-free linguistic framework that is lexically thatexist determine the size of thesearch space for based. It differs from other context-free grammars the classificationof unknown words. In general,the in thatthere are no decomposableconstituent struc- morecomplex the phrasestructure rules, the larger turesand its grammar rules are implicit in thelexi- thesearch space. con. Thispaper explores lexical acquisition in a frame- Eachword in the grammaris definedby a syntac- workwithout phrase structure rules. All constraints ticconstraint that is expressedin a disjunctivenor- on the usageof wordsare integratedinto the lexi- realform. Each disjunct consists of a pairof ordered con.We use a novellexical representation that ex- listsof theform ((11, ..., /m-l, Im)(rn, m-l, ..., plicitlyspecifies what syntactic and semantic classes wherethe lefthand list is made up of connectors of wordsmay appear to theleft and to theright of a thatmust link to wordsto theleft of theword in the wordin a validsentence. If allwords are known in a sentenceand likewisefor theright hand list. Each sentence,it is validonly if theassociated constraints wordcan have multiple disjuncts, which implies that it canbe usedin varioussyntactic contexts. *Supportedin partby theNational Science Founda- The followingis a simpleexample of a LinkGram- tionunder Grant No. IRI-9212074. mar: 118 big, yellow: (() (A)) is to select one disjunct for each word in a sentence car, corn, condor, that will lead to &atisfaction of the the meta-rules. gasoline, meat: ((A,D,,O,) ((X,Ds)(Ss)) 3 Syntactic Acquisition ((Ds)(Ss)) Syntactic acquisition is the proce~ of mapping an ((D,,O,) unknownword to a finite set of syntactic categories. (COs)()) In Link Grammar syntactic categories are repre- eats: ((ss)(o)) sented by the constraints that are expressed as dis- ss)()) juncts. Our lexical acquisition system is not called the: l(() (D)) upon to create or identify new syntactic categories aa we assume that these are already known. Parsing a sentence in Link Grammarconsists of Given a sentence with unknown words the dis- choosing one disjunct for each word such that it can juncts of unknown words are determined based upon be connected to the surrounding words aa specified the syntactic constraints of the knownwords in the in that disjunct. For a simple example consider the sentence. sequence of words: The condor eats the meat" and For instance suppose that snipe is an unknown the following choices of disjuncts for each word from word in the sentence: "The snipe eats meat". The the lexicon above: following lists all the choices for the disjuncts of the the: (() (D)) known words which come from the lexicon. condor: ((Ds) (Ss)) the: (() (D)) eats: ((ss)(o)) snipe: ((?) (?)) the: (() (V)) eats: ((s,)(o)) meat: ((Ds,Os) ((as) meat: ((A,Ds,Os)()) ((A,Ds)(Ss)) The following diagram (called a linkage) shows the ((Ds)(Ss)) links amongthe words that justify the validity of the ((D,,O,)()) sentence according to Link Grammar. ((o,)()) + .... 08--+ It must be determined what disjnnct associated +-Ds--+-Ss--+ +-Ds-+ with ’snipe’ will allow for the selection of a single I disjunct for every known word such that each word 1:he condor eL~s 1:he mea~ can have its disjtmct satisfied in accordance with In general, a sequence of words is a sentence if it the meta-rules previously discussed. There are 10 is possible to draw links amongthe words in such distinct disjnncts in the above gr~,mmar and any one a way that the syntactic constraint of every word of those could be the proper syntactic category for is satisfied and all the following meta-rules are ob- ’snipe’. served: We could attempt to parse by blindly assigning to ’snipe’ each of these disjuncts and see which led ¯ Planarity: Links drawn above the sentence do to a valid linkage. Howeverthis is impractical since not intersect. more complicated grammars will have hundreds or ¯ Connectivity: There is a path from any word even thousands of known disjnncts. In fact, in the in the sentence to any other word via the links. current 24,000 word lexicon there are approximately ¯ Ordering: For each disjunct of a word w, of the 6,500 different syntactic constraints. A blind ap- form((iz, ..., In-z, l,n)(r,, m-x, ..., rx)), proach would assign all of these disjnncts to ’snipe’ m _> 0 and n >_ 0, the left hand list of con- and then attempt to parse. It is possible to greatly nectors indicates links to words to the left of reduce the number of candidate disjnncts by analyz- w, and likewise for the right hand list. In ad- ing the disjuncts for the known words. Those dis- dition, the larger the subscript of a connector, juncts that violate the constraints of the meta-rules the further away the word with the matching are eliminated. connector is from w. The disjuncts ((A,Ds)(Ss)) and ((Ds)(Ss)) ’meat’ are immediately eliminated as they can never ¯ Exclusion: No two links may connect the same be satisfied since there are no words to the right of pair of words. ’meat’. Parsing in Link Grammarcorresponds to constraint The disjunct ((A,Ds,Os)()) for ’meat’ can solving according to these meta-rules. The objective be eliminated. If the A connector is to be satisfied 119 it would have to be sat/~ied by ’snipe’. The or- +-Ds--+-Ss--+~Os-+ dering meta-rule implies that the Ds connector in I I I I ’meat’ wouldhave to be satisfied by ’the’ but then the snipe eal:s mea~ the remaining Os connector in ’meat’ would not be satiMiable since there are no wordspreceding ’the’. 4 Semantic Acquisition That leaves the disjnncts ((Ds,Os)()) and )) as the remainingpossibilities for ’meat’. Thedis- Acquisition of lexical semantics is defined in junct ((Ds,Os)()) can be eliminated since the [Berwick, 1983; Granger, 1977; Hastings, 1994; Rns- words that can satisfy the Ds connector are ’the’or sell, 1993] as mappingunknown words to knowncon- cepts. [Hastings, 1994; Russell, 1993] assumethat ’snipe’. Again the ordering meta-ru/e makesit im- possible to satisfy the Os connector. Thus the only the knowledgebase is a concept hierarchy structured remainingcandidate disjunct for ’meat’ is ((Os)()). as a tree where children are morespecific concepts The next wordconsidered is ’eats’. There are two than their parents. There are separate hierarchies pouihle disjuncts and neither can he immediately for nouns and verbs. Rather than usin~ concept hi- eliminated. The left handside of each disjunct con- erarchies [Berwick,1983; Granger,1977J used scripts s/sts of an Ss connector.This could only be satisfied and causal networks to represent a sequence of re- by ’snipe’ whichtherefore must have an Ss connector lated events. In their workLexical Acquisition con- sists of mappingan unknown word into a knownse- in its right hand side. Recall that the left handside quence of ’meat’ consists of an Os connector. This could be of events. Weadopt the convention of [Hast- satisfied either by the ((Ss)(O)) disjunct for ’eats’ ings, 1994; Russell, 1993Jand attempt to map un- if the right handside of ’snipe’ consists of ((Os,Ss)). knownwords into a concept hierarchy. The left handside of ’snipe’ need only consist of a In order to semantically classify an unknownword D connector in order to satisfy the right hand s/de the lexical entries of known words must be aug- of ’the’. Thus the disjunct for ’snipe’ must be ei- mentedwith semantic information derived from the actual usage of themin a variety of contexts. ther ((D)(Ss)) or ((D)(Os,Ss)) and we have eliminated any of the candidate disjuncts for ’eats’. As sentences with no unknownwords are parsed, Unfortunately the meta-rules do not allow for the each connector in the syntactic constraints of nouns further elimination of candidate disjuncts. and verbs is tagged with the noun or verb with which it connects to. For instance given the sentence: "The In cases suchas this the lexicon is usedaa a knowl- condor eats meat", the nouns and verbs are tagged edge source and will be used to resolve the issue.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Protein Interaction Extraction Systemusing a Link Grammar Parser from Biomedical Abstracts
    World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Biomedical and Biological Engineering Vol:1, No:5, 2007 PIELG: A Protein Interaction Extraction System using a Link Grammar Parser from Biomedical Abstracts Rania A. Abul Seoud, Nahed H. Solouma, Abou-Baker M. Youssef, and Yasser M. Kadah, Senior Member, IEEE failure. Applications that repair or replace portions of or Abstract—Due to the ever growing amount of publications about whole living tissues (e.g., bone, dentine, or bladder) using protein-protein interactions, information extraction from text is living cells is named Tissue Engineering (TE). For example, increasingly recognized as one of crucial technologies in dentine formation is the process of regenerating dental tissues bioinformatics. This paper presents a Protein Interaction Extraction by tissue engineering principles and technology. Dentine System using a Link Grammar Parser from biomedical abstracts formation is governed by biological mediators or growth (PIELG). PIELG uses linkage given by the Link Grammar Parser to start a case based analysis of contents of various syntactic roles as factors (protein) and interactions amongst different proteins. well as their linguistically significant and meaningful combinations. Dentine formation needs the support of continuous updated The system uses phrasal-prepositional verbs patterns to overcome information about protein-protein interactions. preposition combinations problems. The recall and precision are Researches in the last decade have resulted in the 74.4% and 62.65%, respectively. Experimental evaluations with two production of a large amount of information about protein other state-of-the-art extraction systems indicate that PIELG system functions involved in dentine formation process. That achieves better performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing a Portable Clinical NLP System with a Common Data Model: a Lisp Perspective
    Implementing a portable clinical NLP system with a common data model: a Lisp perspective The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Luo, Yuan, and Peter Szolovits, "Implementing a portable clinical NLP system with a common data model: a Lisp perspective." Proceedings, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM 2018), December 3-6, 2018, Madrid, Spain (Piscataway, N.J.: IEEE, 2018): doi 10.1109/BIBM.2018.8621521 ©2018 Author(s) As Published 10.1109/BIBM.2018.8621521 Publisher Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Version Original manuscript Citable link https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/124439 Terms of Use Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike Detailed Terms http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Implementing a Portable Clinical NLP System with a Common Data Model – a Lisp Perspective Yuan Luo* Peter Szolovits* Dept. of Preventive Medicine CSAIL Northwestern University MIT Chicago, USA Cambridge, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract— This paper presents a Lisp architecture for a annotations, often in idiosyncratic representations. This makes portable NLP system, termed LAPNLP, for processing clinical it quite difficult to chain together sequences of operations. Alt- notes. LAPNLP integrates multiple standard, customized and hough several recent projects have achieved reasonable in-house developed NLP tools. Our system facilitates portability success in analyzing certain types of clinical narratives [3-6], across different institutions and data systems by incorporating an enriched Common Data Model (CDM) to standardize neces- efforts towards a common data model (CDM) to ensure port- sary data elements.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14: Dependency Parsing
    Speech and Language Processing. Daniel Jurafsky & James H. Martin. Copyright © 2021. All rights reserved. Draft of September 21, 2021. CHAPTER 14 Dependency Parsing The focus of the two previous chapters has been on context-free grammars and constituent-based representations. Here we present another important family of dependency grammars grammar formalisms called dependency grammars. In dependency formalisms, phrasal constituents and phrase-structure rules do not play a direct role. Instead, the syntactic structure of a sentence is described solely in terms of directed binary grammatical relations between the words, as in the following dependency parse: root dobj det nmod (14.1) nsubj nmod case I prefer the morning flight through Denver Relations among the words are illustrated above the sentence with directed, labeled typed dependency arcs from heads to dependents. We call this a typed dependency structure because the labels are drawn from a fixed inventory of grammatical relations. A root node explicitly marks the root of the tree, the head of the entire structure. Figure 14.1 shows the same dependency analysis as a tree alongside its corre- sponding phrase-structure analysis of the kind given in Chapter 12. Note the ab- sence of nodes corresponding to phrasal constituents or lexical categories in the dependency parse; the internal structure of the dependency parse consists solely of directed relations between lexical items in the sentence. These head-dependent re- lationships directly encode important information that is often buried in the more complex phrase-structure parses. For example, the arguments to the verb prefer are directly linked to it in the dependency structure, while their connection to the main verb is more distant in the phrase-structure tree.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Persian Syntactic Dependency Treebank
    Development of a Persian Syntactic Dependency Treebank Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli Manouchehr Kouhestani Amirsaeid Moloodi Department of Computer Science Department of Linguistics Department of Linguistics Columbia University Tarbiat Modares University University of Tehran New York, NY Tehran, Iran Tehran, Iran [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract tions in tasks such as machine translation. Depen- dency treebanks are collections of sentences with This paper describes the annotation process their corresponding dependency trees. In the last and linguistic properties of the Persian syn- decade, many dependency treebanks have been de- tactic dependency treebank. The treebank veloped for a large number of languages. There are consists of approximately 30,000 sentences at least 29 languages for which at least one depen- annotated with syntactic roles in addition to morpho-syntactic features. One of the unique dency treebank is available (Zeman et al., 2012). features of this treebank is that there are al- Dependency trees are much more similar to the hu- most 4800 distinct verb lemmas in its sen- man understanding of language and can easily rep- tences making it a valuable resource for ed- resent the free word-order nature of syntactic roles ucational goals. The treebank is constructed in sentences (Kubler¨ et al., 2009). with a bootstrapping approach by means of available tagging and parsing tools and man- Persian is a language with about 110 million ually correcting the annotations. The data is speakers all over the world (Windfuhr, 2009), yet in splitted into standard train, development and terms of the availability of teaching materials and test set in the CoNLL dependency format and annotated data for text processing, it is undoubt- is freely available to researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads." the Open Information Security Foundation
    Performance Testing Suricata The Effect of Configuration Variables On Offline Suricata Performance A Project Completed for CS 6266 Under Jonathon T. Giffin, Assistant Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology by Winston H Messer Project Advisor: Matt Jonkman, President, Open Information Security Foundation December 2011 Messer ii Abstract The Suricata IDS/IPS engine, a viable alternative to Snort, has a multitude of potential configurations. A simplified automated testing system was devised for the purpose of performance testing Suricata in an offline environment. Of the available configuration variables, seventeen were analyzed independently by testing in fifty-six configurations. Of these, three variables were found to have a statistically significant effect on performance: Detect Engine Profile, Multi Pattern Algorithm, and CPU affinity. Acknowledgements In writing the final report on this endeavor, I would like to start by thanking four people who made this project possible: Matt Jonkman, President, Open Information Security Foundation: For allowing me the opportunity to carry out this project under his supervision. Victor Julien, Lead Programmer, Open Information Security Foundation and Anne-Fleur Koolstra, Documentation Specialist, Open Information Security Foundation: For their willingness to share their wisdom and experience of Suricata via email for the past four months. John M. Weathersby, Jr., Executive Director, Open Source Software Institute: For allowing me the use of Institute equipment for the creation of a suitable testing
    [Show full text]
  • Lexicalization and Grammar Development
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons IRCS Technical Reports Series Institute for Research in Cognitive Science April 1995 Lexicalization and Grammar Development B. Srinivas University of Pennsylvania Dania Egedi University of Pennsylvania Christine D. Doran University of Pennsylvania Tilman Becker University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports Srinivas, B.; Egedi, Dania; Doran, Christine D.; and Becker, Tilman, "Lexicalization and Grammar Development" (1995). IRCS Technical Reports Series. 138. https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/138 University of Pennsylvania Institute for Research in Cognitive Science Technical Report No. IRCS-95-12. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/ircs_reports/138 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lexicalization and Grammar Development Abstract In this paper we present a fully lexicalized grammar formalism as a particularly attractive framework for the specification of natural language grammars. We discuss in detail Feature-based, Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars (FB-LTAGs), a representative of the class of lexicalized grammars. We illustrate the advantages of lexicalized grammars in various contexts of natural language processing, ranging from wide-coverage grammar development to parsing and machine translation. We also present a method for compact and efficientepr r esentation of lexicalized trees. In diesem Beitrag präsentieren wir einen völlig lexikalisierten Grammatikformalismus als eine besonders geeignete Basis für die Spezifikation onv Grammatiken für natürliche Sprachen. Wir stellen feature- basierte, lexikalisierte Tree Adjoining Grammars (FB-LTAGs) vor, ein Vertreter der Klasse der lexikalisierten Grammatiken. Wir führen die Vorteile von lexikalisierten Grammatiken in verschiedenen Bereichen der maschinellen Sprachverarbeitung aus; von der Entwicklung von Grammatiken für weite Sprachbereiche über Parsing bis zu maschineller Übersetzung.
    [Show full text]
  • Parsing Aligned Parallel Corpus by Projecting Syntactic Relations from Annotated Source Corpus
    Parsing Aligned Parallel Corpus by Projecting Syntactic Relations from Annotated Source Corpus Shailly Goyal Niladri Chatterjee Department of Mathematics Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016, India {shailly goyal, niladri iitd}@yahoo.com Abstract approaches either use examples from the same lan- guage, e.g., (Bod et al., 2003; Streiter, 2002), or Example-based parsing has already been they try to imitate the parse of a given sentence proposed in literature. In particular, at- using the parse of the corresponding sentence in tempts are being made to develop tech- some other language (Hwa et al., 2005; Yarowsky niques for language pairs where the source and Ngai, 2001). In particular, Hwa et al. (2005) and target languages are different, e.g. have proposed a scheme called direct projection Direct Projection Algorithm (Hwa et al., algorithm (DPA) which assumes that the relation 2005). This enables one to develop parsed between two words in the source language sen- corpus for target languages having fewer tence is preserved across the corresponding words linguistic tools with the help of a resource- in the parallel target language. This is called Di- rich source language. The DPA algo- rect Correspondence Assumption (DCA). rithm works on the assumption of Di- However, with respect to Indian languages we rect Correspondence which simply means observed that the DCA does not hold good all the that the relation between two words of time. In order to overcome the difficulty, in this the source language sentence can be pro- work, we propose an algorithm based on a vari- jected directly between the correspond- ation of the DCA, which we call pseudo Direct ing words of the parallel target language Correspondence Assumption (pDCA).
    [Show full text]
  • Dependency-Length Minimization in Natural and Artificial Languages*
    Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 2008, Volume 15, Number 3, pp. 256 – 282 DOI: 10.1080/09296170802159512 Dependency-Length Minimization in Natural and Artificial Languages* David Temperley Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester ABSTRACT A wide range of evidence points to a preference for syntactic structures in which dependencies are short. Here we examine the question: what kinds of dependency configurations minimize dependency length? We consider two well-established principles of dependency-length minimization; that dependencies should be consistently right-branching or left-branching, and that shorter dependent phrases should be closer to the head. We also add a third, novel, principle; that some ‘‘opposite-branching’’ of one-word phrases is desirable. In a series of computational experiments, using unordered dependency trees gathered from written English, we examine the effect of these three principles on dependency length, and show that all three contribute significantly to dependency-length reduction. Finally, we present what appears to be the optimal ‘‘grammar’’ for dependency-length minimization. INTRODUCTION A wide range of evidence from diverse areas of linguistic research points to a preference for syntactic structures in which dependencies between related words are short.1 This preference is reflected in numerous psycholinguistic phenomena: structures with long depen- dencies appear to cause increased complexity in comprehen- sion and tend to be avoided in production. The preference for shorter dependencies has also been cited as an explanation for certain *Address correspondence to: David Temperley, Eastman School of Music, 26 Gibbs Street, Rochester, NY 14604. Tel: 585-274-1557. E-mail: [email protected] 1Thanks to Daniel Gildea for valuable comments on a draft of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Language Processing (NLP): Written and Oral Involves Processing of Written Text Using Computer Models at Lexical, Syntactic, and Semantic Level
    Natural Language Processing (NLP): written and oral Involves processing of written text using computer models at lexical, syntactic, and semantic level. Introduction: 1. Understanding (of language) – map text/speech to immediately useful form. 2. Generation (of language) Sentence Analysis Phases: 1. Morphological Analysis: extracts root word from declined/inflection form of word after removing suffices and prefixes. 2. Syntactic Analysis: builds a structural description of a sentence using MAP (Morphological Analysis Process) based on grammatical rules, called Parsing. 3. Semantic Analysis: Creates a semantic structure by ascribing a literal meaning to sentence using parse structure obtained in syntactic phase. It maps individual words into corresponding objects in the knowledge base. Focus is on creation of target representation of the meaning of a sentence. 4. Pragmatic Analysis: to establish meaning of a sentence in different contexts. 5. Discourse Analysis: Interpretation based on belief during conversation. Grammars and Parsers: Parsing: Process of analyzing an input sequence in order to determine its structure with respect to a given grammar. Types of Parsing: 1. Rule-based parsing: syntactic structure of language is provided in the form of linguistic rules which can be coded as production rules that are similar to context-free rules. 1. Top-down parsing: Start with start symbol and apply grammar rules in the forward direction until the terminal symbols of the parse tree correspond to the words in the sentence. 2. Bottom-up parsing: Start with the words in the sentence in the sentence and apply grammar rules in the backward direction until a single tree is produced whose root matches with the start symbol.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraction of Protein Interaction Information from Unstructured Text Using a Link Grammar Parser Rania A
    Extraction of Protein Interaction Information from Unstructured Text Using a link Grammar Parser Rania A. Abul Seoud1, Nahed H. Solouma2, Abou-Bakr M. Youssef3, Yasser M. Kadah3 1,3Misr University for Science and Technology, 6 October City, Egypt 2Laser Institute, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt 3Biomedical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt E-mail: [email protected] Abstract- As research into disease pathology and cellular number of groups reported application of pattern-matching- function continues to generate vast amounts of data, pertaining based systems for protein-function information extraction. to protein and gene interactions, there is a critical need to The shortcoming of such systems is their inability to process capture these results in structured formats allowing for correctly anything other than short, straightforward computational analysis. Although many efforts have been made statements, which are quite rare in information-saturated to create databases that store this information in computer readable form, populating these sources largely requires a MEDLINE and PubMED abstracts. Several attempts have manual process of interpreting and extracting interaction been made to utilize shallow-parsing techniques for the task relationships from the biological research literature. Being able of biological information. Shallow parsers perform partial to efficiently and accurately automate the extraction of decomposition of a sentence structure. In some cases, interactions from unstructured text, would improve the content shallow-parsers are used in combination with various of these databases, and provide a method for managing the heuristic and statistical methods. Information extraction continued growth of new literature being published. Hence, it is systems based on the full-sentence parsing approach deal important to have a fully automated extraction system for the with the structure of an entire sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Wanderlust: Extracting Semantic Relations from Natural Language Text Using Dependency Grammar Patterns
    Wanderlust: Extracting Semantic Relations from Natural Language Text Using Dependency Grammar Patterns Alan Akbik Jürgen Broß Freie Universität Berlin Freie Universität Berlin Institute of Computer Science Institute of Computer Science 14195 Berlin, Germany 14195 Berlin, Germany [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT SUMO [20] have been manually constructed in a laborious A great share of applications in modern information tech- and expensive process. While such a procedure offers very nology can benefit from large coverage, machine accessible high precision, it naturally does not scale well. High cover- knowledge bases. However, the bigger part of todays knowl- age and up-to-dateness are difficult to be achieved this way. edge is provided in the form of unstructured data, mostly Inspired by success stories such as Wikipedia, recent ap- plain text. As an initial step to exploit such data, we present proaches pursue the idea of building large-scale structured Wanderlust, an algorithm that automatically extracts se- knowledge bases by leveraging the collaborative power of mantic relations from natural language text. The procedure thousands of volunteers [26, 22]. We believe this to be a uses deep linguistic patterns that are defined over the depen- very promising way. However, similar to other Web 2.0-style dency grammar of sentences. Due to its linguistic nature, applications, such an approach depends heavily on a critical the method performs in an unsupervised fashion and is not mass of users. In fact, this approach entails a circular de- restricted to any specific type of semantic relation. The ap- pendency: A critical mass of users can only be attracted if plicability of the proposed approach is examined in a case enough structured data has been collected so that people can study, in which it is put to the task of generating a seman- start developing compelling applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpretable Natural Language Segmentation Based on Link Grammar
    Interpretable Natural Language Segmentation Based on Link Grammar Vignav Ramesh Anton Kolonin SingularityNET, Saratoga H.S. Novosibirsk State University Saratoga, CA, USA Novosibirsk, Russia November 15, 2020 November 15, 2020 1 / 27 Overview I Introduction • Natural Language Segmentation • Sources of Unsegmented Text • Motivations • Link Grammar I Methodology • Loader • Segment I Results I Conclusion • Applications • Future Work November 15, 2020 2 / 27 Introduction November 15, 2020 3 / 27 Natural Language Segmentation I Process of dividing written text into meaningful units I Focus on the sub-problem of sentence segmentation • Dividing a string of natural language (NL) text into its component sentences that can then be used to build a parse tree • Proposed architecture solely relies on grammatical relationships between tokens I Generalizes to languages other than English or Russian November 15, 2020 4 / 27 Sources of Unsegmented Text 1. Text output from speech-to-text (STT) recognition engines • STT engines transcribe audio content and return sequences of tokens without delimeters • Often used to preprocess the inputs of voice-activated question answering or chatbot pipelines (among various other scenarios involving the transcription of audio without recorded punctuation) 2. Crawled web pages • Returns raw HTML and CSS output that often does not contain proper punctuation • HTML and CSS tags are neither accurate nor consistent sentence boundaries November 15, 2020 5 / 27 Motivations November 15, 2020 6 / 27 Interpretable Natural Language
    [Show full text]