DOCSLIB.ORG

LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol Vol. 110, No. 1 Winter 2018 LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL LIBRARY LAW LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 110, No. 1 Winter 2018 Pages 1–180 2018 Pages 110, No. 1 Winter Vol. ARTICLES 2018: A Legal Research Odyssey: Artificial Intelligence as Disruptor [2018–1] Jamie J. Baker 5 Access to Print, Access to Justice [2018–2] Kimberly Mattioli 31 The Reference Assistant [2018–3] Annalee Hickman Moser and Felicity Murphy 59 The History of the University of New Mexico School of Law Librarians’ Fight for Faculty Status and Equal Voting Rights [2018–4] Ernesto A. Longa 93 Remaking the Public Law Library into a Twenty-First Century Legal Resource Center [2018–5] Mark G. Harmon, Shannon Grzybowski, Bryan Thompson, and Stephanie Cross 115 0023-9283(201824)110:1;1-G Vol. 110, No. 1 LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Winter 2018 American Association of Law Libraries Editorial Staff Editor: James E. Duggan Assistant Editor: Tom Gaylord Publications Manager: Heather Haemker Production: ALA Production Services 2017–2018 Association Officers Gregory R. Lambert, President; Femi Cadmus, Vice President/President-Elect; Luis Acosta, Secretary; Jean L. Willis, Treasurer; Ronald E. Wheeler Jr., Immediate Past President; Elizabeth G. Adelman, Emily R. Florio, Mary Jenkins, Meg Kribble, Mary E. Matuszak, Jean P. O’Grady, Board Members; Kate Hagan, Executive Director. 2017–2018 Law Library Journal Board of Editors James E. Duggan (ex-officio), Tom Gaylord (ex-officio), Frank G. Houdek, Anne Klinefelter, Janet Sinder, members. Law Library Journal ® (ISSN 0023-9283) is published quarterly in the Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall by the American Association of Law Libraries, 105 W. Adams Street, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60603. Telephone: 312.939.4764; fax: 312.431.1097; email: [email protected]. Member subscriptions are $35 per year; nonmember subscriptions are $125 per year; individual issues are $31.25. Periodicals postage paid at Chicago, Illinois, and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Law Library Journal, AALL, 105 W. Adams Street, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60603. Advertising Representatives: Innovative Media Solutions, 320 W. Chestnut Street, PO Box 399, Oneida, IL 61467. Telephone: 309.483.6467; fax: 309.483.2371; email: [email protected]. All correspondence regarding editorial matters should be sent to Tom Gaylord, Law Library Journal Assistant Editor, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, Pritzker Legal Research Center, 375 E. Chicago Ave., Chicago, IL 60611. Telephone: 312.503.4725; email: [email protected]. This publication is provided for informational and educational purposes only. The American Association of Law Libraries does not assume, and expressly disclaims, any responsibility for the state- ments advanced by the contributors to, and the advertisers in, the Association’s publications. Editorial views do not necessarily represent the official position of the Association or of its officers, directors, staff, or representatives. All advertising copy is subject to editorial approval. The Association does not endorse or make any guarantee with respect to any products or services mentioned or advertised in the publication. Law Library Journal is printed on acid-free paper. Notice All articles copyright © 2018 by the American Association of Law Libraries, except where otherwise expressly indicated. Except as otherwise expressly provided, the author of each article in this issue has granted permission for copies of that article to be made for classroom use or for any other educational purpose provided that (1) copies are distributed at or below cost, (2) author and journal are identified, and (3) proper notice of copyright is affixed to each copy. For articles in which it holds copyright, the American Association of Law Libraries grants permission for copies to be made for classroom use or for any other educational purpose under the same conditions. Vol. 110, No. 1 LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Winter 2018 Table of Contents General Articles 2018: A Legal Research Odyssey: Artificial Jamie J. Baker 5 Intelligence as Disruptor [2018-1] Access to Print, Access to Justice [2018-2] Kimberly Mattioli 31 The Reference Assistant [2018-3] Annalee Hickman Moser 59 Felicity Murphy The History of the University of New Mexico Ernesto A. Longa 93 School of Law Librarians’ Fight for Faculty Status and Equal Voting Rights [2018-4] Remaking the Public Law Library into a Twenty- Mark G. Harmon 115 First Century Legal Resource Center [2018-5] Shannon Grzybowski Bryan Thompson Stephanie Cross Review Article Keeping Up with New Legal Titles [2018-6] Benjamin J. Keele 149 Nick Sexton Regular Feature Practicing Reference . Mary Whisner 167 My Year of Citation Studies, Part 1 [2018-7] LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 110:1 [2018-1] 2018: A Legal Research Odyssey: Artificial Intelligence as Disruptor* Jamie J. Baker** Cognitive computing has the power to make legal research more efficient, but it does not eliminate the need to teach law students sound legal research process and strat- egy. Law librarians must also instruct on using artificial intelligence responsibly in the face of algorithmic transparency, the duty of technology competence, malpractice pitfalls, and the unauthorized practice of law. Introduction ...........................................................5 AI Becomes a Reality ....................................................7 The Current State of Artificial Intelligence ...............................7 Artificial Intelligence in the Professions .................................9 Finance: Kensho and Beyond ......................................10 Medicine: IBM Watson for Medicine ................................11 Law ............................................................13 Natural Language Processing and Premature Disruption ....................16 AI in Legal Research ...................................................20 DeepQA Applied to Legal Research ....................................20 The Limitations of AI and the Need to Use AI Responsibly ...............22 Algorithmic Accountability and Computational Negligence ............22 The Duty of Technology Competence and Malpractice Pitfalls ..........25 Unauthorized Practice of Law ......................................27 Algorithmic Literacy: Legal Research Instruction Implications ............28 Conclusion . .29 Introduction ¶1 My fascination with worker automation started at age twelve. My classmates and I traveled four hours away from our rural northern Michigan town of 2500, a town that had not changed much since the late 1800s when the manufacturing stronghold, the East Jordan Iron Works, was established. Most of our fathers * © Jamie J. Baker, 2018. I would like to thank Paul Friener for his dedicated ear. I would also like to thank my mentor, John Michaud, for his ever-present advising and thorough review, and law librarian Alyson Drake for her constant inspiration. I would also like to thank Texas Tech University School of Law for its generous support. This paper was presented at the SEALS New Scholar Colloquia in August 2017. ** Interim Director, Texas Tech University School of Law Library, Lubbock, Texas. 5 6 LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 110:1 [2018-1] worked at the iron works; most of our mothers worked for Dura Automotive, a rural assembly line making component parts for the “Big Three” in Detroit. For many of us, this was our first big trip away from home. We were taking a three-day field trip to see, among other things, the world-renowned Henry Ford Museum. There were many memorable moments from this trip. I remember seeing the chair in which Lincoln was assassinated, with its blood-soaked back. I saw Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion House. And I saw the future of automation in the auto industry. ¶2 One of the museum’s exhibits displayed the new robotic arm of the automo- tive assembly line. The docent leading our school tour touted this as “revolution- izing” the line. As we filed to the next exhibit, I remember the distinct pit that formed in my stomach. While that robotic arm symbolized a revolutionary step in manufacturing, it also symbolized a loss of work and wages for the many struggling families in my hometown. The robotic arm would be great for Ford’s bottom line; it would be disastrous for my family’s bottom line. ¶3 Sure enough, within five years, Dura Automotive left East Jordan and took its jobs with it. While not solely attributable to automation, it was no doubt part of the equation. As a result of this early life experience, I developed a near obsession with prognostications about automation’s future impact on society, including my chosen profession: law. ¶4 The assembly line involves the type of routinized work that is prime for automation, but we’re now starting to hear about the automation of knowledge work in fields like finance, medicine, and law. And much of what we’re hearing is that in the immediate future, knowledge work will see automation advances similar to those already seen in the manufacturing sector. ¶5 While it is naïve to think that automation won’t affect knowledge work at all, it is clear that computing capability is not ready to replace highly skilled profession- als. If stakeholders start to believe the hype of the PR campaigns surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) and automation, various sectors may be subject to pre- mature disruption—the notion that workers are displaced before the technology is truly ready to replace them. To avoid premature disruption, legal professionals must understand current computing capability and the associated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Semantic Role Labeling 2
    Semantic Role Labeling 2 Outline • Semantic role theory • Designing semantic role annotation project ▫ Granularity ▫ Pros and cons of different role schemas ▫ Multi-word expressions 3 Outline • Semantic role theory • Designing semantic role annotation project ▫ Granularity ▫ Pros and cons of different role schemas ▫ Multi-word expressions 4 Semantic role theory • Predicates tie the components of a sentence together • Call these components arguments • [John] opened [the door]. 5 Discovering meaning • Syntax only gets you so far in answering “Who did what to whom?” John opened the door. Syntax: NPSUB V NPOBJ The door opened. Syntax: NPSUB V 6 Discovering meaning • Syntax only gets you so far in answering “Who did what to whom?” John opened the door. Syntax: NPSUB V NPOBJ Semantic roles: Opener REL thing opened The door opened. Syntax: NPSUB V Semantic roles: thing opened REL 7 Can the lexicon account for this? • Is there a different sense of open for each combination of roles and syntax? • Open 1: to cause something to become open • Open 2: become open • Are these all the senses we would need? (1) John opened the door with a crowbar. Open1? (2) They tried the tools in John’s workshop one after the other, and finally the crowbar opened the door. Still Open1? 8 Fillmore’s deep cases • Correspondence between syntactic case and semantic role that participant plays • “Deep cases”: Agentive, Objective, Dative, Instrument, Locative, Factitive • Loosely associated with syntactic cases; transformations result in the final surface case 9 The door opened. Syntax: NPSUB V Semantic roles: Objective REL John opened the door. Syntax: NPSUB V NPOBJ Semantic roles: Agentive REL Objective The crowbar opened the door.
    [Show full text]
  • ACL 2019 Social Media Mining for Health Applications (#SMM4H)
    ACL 2019 Social Media Mining for Health Applications (#SMM4H) Workshop & Shared Task Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop August 2, 2019 Florence, Italy c 2019 The Association for Computational Linguistics Order copies of this and other ACL proceedings from: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) 209 N. Eighth Street Stroudsburg, PA 18360 USA Tel: +1-570-476-8006 Fax: +1-570-476-0860 [email protected] ISBN 978-1-950737-46-8 ii Preface Welcome to the 4th Social Media Mining for Health Applications Workshop and Shared Task - #SMM4H 2019. The total number of users of social media continues to grow worldwide, resulting in the generation of vast amounts of data. Popular social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram dominate this sphere. According to estimates, 500 million tweets and 4.3 billion Facebook messages are posted every day 1. The latest Pew Research Report 2, nearly half of adults worldwide and two- thirds of all American adults (65%) use social networking. The report states that of the total users, 26% have discussed health information, and, of those, 30% changed behavior based on this information and 42% discussed current medical conditions. Advances in automated data processing, machine learning and NLP present the possibility of utilizing this massive data source for biomedical and public health applications, if researchers address the methodological challenges unique to this media. In its fourth iteration, the #SMM4H workshop takes place in Florence, Italy, on August 2, 2019, and is co-located with the
    [Show full text]
  • Syntax Role for Neural Semantic Role Labeling
    Syntax Role for Neural Semantic Role Labeling Zuchao Li Hai Zhao∗ Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai Jiao Tong University Department of Computer Science and Department of Computer Science and Engineering Engineering [email protected] [email protected] Shexia He Jiaxun Cai Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai Jiao Tong University Department of Computer Science and Department of Computer Science and Engineering Engineering [email protected] [email protected] Semantic role labeling (SRL) is dedicated to recognizing the semantic predicate-argument struc- ture of a sentence. Previous studies in terms of traditional models have shown syntactic informa- tion can make remarkable contributions to SRL performance; however, the necessity of syntactic information was challenged by a few recent neural SRL studies that demonstrate impressive performance without syntactic backbones and suggest that syntax information becomes much less important for neural semantic role labeling, especially when paired with recent deep neural network and large-scale pre-trained language models. Despite this notion, the neural SRL field still lacks a systematic and full investigation on the relevance of syntactic information in SRL, for both dependency and both monolingual and multilingual settings. This paper intends to quantify the importance of syntactic information for neural SRL in the deep learning framework. We introduce three typical SRL frameworks (baselines), sequence-based, tree-based, and graph-based, which are accompanied by two categories of exploiting syntactic information: syntax pruning- based and syntax feature-based. Experiments are conducted on the CoNLL-2005, 2009, and 2012 benchmarks for all languages available, and results show that neural SRL models can still benefit from syntactic information under certain conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Role Labeling Tutorial NAACL, June 9, 2013
    Semantic Role Labeling Tutorial NAACL, June 9, 2013 Part 1: Martha Palmer, University of Colorado Part 2: Shumin Wu, University of Colorado Part 3: Ivan Titov, Universität des Saarlandes 1 Outline } Part 1 Linguistic Background, Resources, Annotation Martha Palmer, University of Colorado } Part 2 Supervised Semantic Role Labeling and Leveraging Parallel PropBanks Shumin Wu, University of Colorado } Part 3 Semi- , unsupervised and cross-lingual approaches Ivan Titov, Universität des Saarlandes, Universteit van Amsterdam 2 Motivation: From Sentences to Propositions Who did what to whom, when, where and how? Powell met Zhu Rongji battle wrestle join debate Powell and Zhu Rongji met consult Powell met with Zhu Rongji Proposition: meet(Powell, Zhu Rongji) Powell and Zhu Rongji had a meeting meet(Somebody1, Somebody2) . When Powell met Zhu Rongji on Thursday they discussed the return of the spy plane. meet(Powell, Zhu) discuss([Powell, Zhu], return(X, plane)) Capturing semantic roles SUBJ } Dan broke [ the laser pointer.] SUBJ } [ The windows] were broken by the hurricane. SUBJ } [ The vase] broke into pieces when it toppled over. PropBank - A TreeBanked Sentence (S (NP-SBJ Analysts) S (VP have (VP been VP (VP expecting (NP (NP a GM-Jaguar pact) have VP (SBAR (WHNP-1 that) (S (NP-SBJ *T*-1) NP-SBJ been VP (VP would Analysts (VP give expectingNP (NP the U.S. car maker) SBAR (NP (NP an eventual (ADJP 30 %) stake) NP S (PP-LOC in (NP the British company)))))))))))) a GM-Jaguar WHNP-1 VP pact that NP-SBJ VP *T*-1 would NP give Analysts have been expecting a GM-Jaguar NP PP-LOC pact that would give the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Pairwise Document Similarity Computation in Big Datasets
    International Journal of Database Theory and Application Vol.8, No.4 (2015), pp.59-70 http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijdta.2015.8.4.07 Efficient Pairwise Document Similarity Computation in Big Datasets 1Papias Niyigena, 1Zhang Zuping*, 2Weiqi Li and 1Jun Long 1School of Information Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, 410083, China 2School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University Xian, 710049, China [email protected], * [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Document similarity is a common task to a variety of problems such as clustering, unsupervised learning and text retrieval. It has been seen that document with the very similar content provides little or no new information to the user. This work tackles this problem focusing on detecting near duplicates documents in large corpora. In this paper, we are presenting a new method to compute pairwise document similarity in a corpus which will reduce the time execution and save space execution resources. Our method group shingles of all documents of a corpus in a relation, with an advantage of efficiently manage up to millions of records and ease counting and aggregating. Three algorithms are introduced to reduce the candidates shingles to be compared: one creates the relation of shingles to be considered, the second one creates the set of triples and the third one gives the similarity of documents by efficiently counting the shared shingles between documents. The experiment results show that our method reduces the number of candidates pairs to be compared from which reduce also the execution time and space compared with existing algorithms which consider the computation of all pairs candidates.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Lingual Semantic Role Labeling with Model Transfer Hao Fei, Meishan Zhang, Fei Li and Donghong Ji
    1 Cross-lingual Semantic Role Labeling with Model Transfer Hao Fei, Meishan Zhang, Fei Li and Donghong Ji Abstract—Prior studies show that cross-lingual semantic role transfer. The former is based on large-scale parallel corpora labeling (SRL) can be achieved by model transfer under the between source and target languages, where the source-side help of universal features. In this paper, we fill the gap of sentences are automatically annotated with SRL tags and cross-lingual SRL by proposing an end-to-end SRL model that incorporates a variety of universal features and transfer methods. then the source annotations are projected to the target-side We study both the bilingual transfer and multi-source transfer, sentences based on word alignment [7], [9], [10], [11], [12]. under gold or machine-generated syntactic inputs, pre-trained Annotation projection has received the most attention for cross- high-order abstract features, and contextualized multilingual lingual SRL. Consequently, a range of strategies have been word representations. Experimental results on the Universal proposed for enhancing the SRL performance of the target Proposition Bank corpus indicate that performances of the cross-lingual SRL can vary by leveraging different cross-lingual language, including improving the projection quality [13], joint features. In addition, whether the features are gold-standard learning of syntax and semantics information [7], iteratively also has an impact on performances. Precisely, we find that bootstrapping to reduce the influence of noise target corpus gold syntax features are much more crucial for cross-lingual [12], and joint translation-SRL [8]. SRL, compared with the automatically-generated ones.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Language Semantic Construction Based on Cloud Database
    Copyright © 2018 Tech Science Press CMC, vol.57, no.3, pp.603-619, 2018 Natural Language Semantic Construction Based on Cloud Database Suzhen Wang1, Lu Zhang1, Yanpiao Zhang1, Jieli Sun1, Chaoyi Pang2, Gang Tian3 and Ning Cao4, * Abstract: Natural language semantic construction improves natural language comprehension ability and analytical skills of the machine. It is the basis for realizing the information exchange in the intelligent cloud-computing environment. This paper proposes a natural language semantic construction method based on cloud database, mainly including two parts: natural language cloud database construction and natural language semantic construction. Natural Language cloud database is established on the CloudStack cloud-computing environment, which is composed by corpus, thesaurus, word vector library and ontology knowledge base. In this section, we concentrate on the pretreatment of corpus and the presentation of background knowledge ontology, and then put forward a TF-IDF and word vector distance based algorithm for duplicated webpages (TWDW). It raises the recognition efficiency of repeated web pages. The part of natural language semantic construction mainly introduces the dynamic process of semantic construction and proposes a mapping algorithm based on semantic similarity (MBSS), which is a bridge between Predicate-Argument (PA) structure and background knowledge ontology. Experiments show that compared with the relevant algorithms, the precision and recall of both algorithms we propose have been significantly improved. The work in this paper improves the understanding of natural language semantics, and provides effective data support for the natural language interaction function of the cloud service. Keywords: Natural language, cloud database, semantic construction. 1 Introduction The Internet of things and big data have promoted the rapid development of the artificial intelligence industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge-Based Semantic Role Labeling Release 0.1
    Knowledge-based Semantic Role Labeling Release 0.1 September 11, 2014 Contents 1 Resources parsing 3 1.1 VerbNet parsing.............................................3 1.2 FrameNet parsing............................................4 2 Frames and arguments extractions7 2.1 Frame extraction.............................................7 2.2 Arguments extraction..........................................8 2.3 Evaluation................................................9 3 Debug ressources 11 3.1 Sample of headwords extractions.................................... 11 3.2 Dump module.............................................. 11 4 Evaluation 15 4.1 Initial mappings............................................. 15 4.2 Frame-matching............................................. 16 4.3 Probability model............................................ 16 4.4 Bootstrapping.............................................. 16 5 Ideas 17 5.1 Finding new matches........................................... 17 5.2 Restricting potential VerbNet classes.................................. 18 5.3 Informative probability model...................................... 18 6 Indices and tables 19 7 References 21 i ii Knowledge-based Semantic Role Labeling, Release 0.1 This repository contains: • A reproduction of (Swier & Stevenson, 2005) results for recent versions of resources and NLP tools (MST Parser, latest VerbNet, FrameNet and VN-FN mappings). • Some improvements of our own • Experiments on domain-specific knowledge-based semantic role labeling Documentation: Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Question-Answer Driven Semantic Role Labeling
    Question-Answer Driven Semantic Role Labeling Using Natural Language to Annotate Natural Language Luheng He, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer University of Washington EMNLP 2015 1 Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) who did what to whom, when and where? 2 Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) Role Predicate Argument Agent Patent Time They increased the rent drastically this year Manner 2 Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) Role Predicate Argument Agent Patent Time They increased the rent drastically this year Manner • Defining a set of roles can be difficult • Existing formulations have used different sets 2 Existing SRL Formulations and Their Frame Inventories FrameNet PropBank 1000+ semantic frames, 10,000+ frame files 10,000+ frame elements (roles) with predicate-specific roles Frame: Change_position_on_a_scale This frame consists of words that indicate the Roleset Id: rise.01 , go up change of an Item's position on a scale Arg1-: Logical subject, patient, thing rising (the Attribute) from a starting point Arg2-EXT: EXT, amount risen (Initial_value) to an end point (Final_value). Arg3-DIR: start point The direction (Path) … Arg4-LOC: end point Lexical Units: Argm-LOC: medium …, reach.v, rise.n, rise.v, rocket.v, shift.n, … Unified Verb Index, University of Colorado http://verbs.colorado.edu/verb-index/ PropBank Annotation Guidelines, Bonial et al., 2010 FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice, Ruppenhofer et al., 2006 FrameNet: https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/ 3 This Talk: QA-SRL • Introduce a new SRL formulation with no frame or role inventory • Use question-answer pairs to model verbal predicate-argument relations • Annotated over 3,000 sentences in weeks with non-expert, part-time annotators • Showed that this data is high-quality and learnable 4 Our Annotation Scheme Given sentence and a verb: They increased the rent this year .
    [Show full text]
  • Facing the Most Difficult Case of Semantic Role Labeling: A
    Facing the most difficult case of Semantic Role Labeling: A collaboration of word embeddings and co-training Quynh Ngoc Thi Do1, Steven Bethard2, Marie-Francine Moens1 1Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium 2University of Arizona, United States [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract We present a successful collaboration of word embeddings and co-training to tackle in the most difficult test case of semantic role labeling: predicting out-of-domain and unseen semantic frames. Despite the fact that co-training is a successful traditional semi-supervised method, its application in SRL is very limited. In this work, co-training is used together with word embeddings to improve the performance of a system trained on CoNLL 2009 training dataset. We also introduce a semantic role labeling system with a simple learning architecture and effective inference that is easily adaptable to semi-supervised settings with new training data and/or new features. On the out-of-domain testing set of the standard benchmark CoNLL 2009 data our simple approach achieves high performance and improves state-of-the-art results. 1 Introduction Semantic role labeling (SRL) is an essential natural language processing (NLP) task that identifies the relations between a predicate and its arguments in a given sentence. Intuitively, it aims at answering the questions of “Who did What to Whom, and How, When and Where?” in text. For example, the processing of the sentence “He bought tons of roses yesterday” should result in the identification of a “buying” event corresponding to the predicate “bought” with three arguments including “he” as the Agent (A0), “tons of roses” as the Thing being bought (A1), and “yesterday” as the Time (AM-TMP) arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Out-Of-Domain Framenet Semantic Role Labeling
    Out-of-domain FrameNet Semantic Role Labeling Silvana Hartmann§†, Ilia Kuznetsov†, Teresa Martin§†, Iryna Gurevych§† Research Training Group AIPHES Ubiquitous§ Knowledge Processing (UKP) Lab Department† of Computer Science, Technische Universitat¨ Darmstadt http://www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de Abstract on a range of benchmark datasets. This is crucial as the demand for semantic textual analysis of large- Domain dependence of NLP systems is one scale web data keeps growing. of the major obstacles to their application in large-scale text analysis, also restrict- Based on FrameNet (Fillmore et al., 2003), ing the applicability of FrameNet semantic FrameNet SRL extracts frame-semantic structures role labeling (SRL) systems. Yet, current on the sentence level that describe a specific FrameNet SRL systems are still only eval- situation centered around a semantic predicate, uated on a single in-domain test set. For often a verb, and its participants, typically the first time, we study the domain depen- syntactic arguments or adjuncts of the predicate. frame dence of FrameNet SRL on a wide range of The predicate is assigned a label, essentially benchmark sets. We create a novel test set a word sense label, that defines the situation and semantic roles for FrameNet SRL based on user-generated determines the of the participants. web text and find that the major bottleneck The following sentence from FrameNet provides Grinding for out-of-domain FrameNet SRL is the an example of the frame and its roles: frame identification step. To address this [The mill]Grinding cause grindsGrinding [the problem, we develop a simple, yet efficient malt]P atient [to grist]Result.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Role Labeling for Learner Chinese
    Semantic Role Labeling for Learner Chinese: the Importance of Syntactic Parsing and L2-L1 Parallel Data Zi Lin123, Yuguang Duan3, Yuanyuan Zhao125, Weiwei Sun124 and Xiaojun Wan12 1Institute of Computer Science and Technology, Peking University 2The MOE Key Laboratory of Computational Linguistics, Peking University 3Department of Chinese Language and Literature, Peking University 4Center for Chinese Linguistics, Peking University 5Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies, Peking University fzi.lin,ariaduan,ws,[email protected], [email protected] Abstract scoring. In this paper, we study semantic pars- This paper studies semantic parsing for in- ing for interlanguage, taking semantic role label- terlanguage (L21), taking semantic role label- ing (SRL) as a case task and learner Chinese as a ing (SRL) as a case task and learner Chi- case language. nese as a case language. We first manu- Before discussing a computation system, we ally annotate the semantic roles for a set of first consider the linguistic competence and per- learner texts to derive a gold standard for formance. Can human robustly understand learner automatic SRL. Based on the new data, we texts? Or to be more precise, to what extent, a na- then evaluate three off-the-shelf SRL systems, i.e., the PCFGLA-parser-based, neural-parser- tive speaker can understand the meaning of a sen- based and neural-syntax-agnostic systems, to tence written by a language learner? Intuitively, gauge how successful SRL for learner Chi- the answer is towards the positive side. To validate
    [Show full text]