DOCSLIB.ORG

Automatic Construction of Semantic Lexicons for Learning Natural Language Interfaces

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Automatic Construction of Semantic Lexicons for Learning Natural Language Interfaces Appears in: Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99) Automatic Construction of Semantic Lexicons for Learning Natural Language Interfaces Cynthia A. Thompson Raymond J. Mooney Center for the Study of Language and Information Department of Computer Sciences Stanford University University of Texas Stanford, CA 94305-4115 Austin, TX 78712 [email protected] [email protected] Abstract required although it can exploit an initial lexicon if pro- vided. This paper describes a system, Wolfie (WOrd Learn- ing From Interpreted Examples), that acquires a se- We tested Wolfie’s ability to acquire a semantic lex- mantic lexicon from a corpus of sentences paired with icon for an interface to a geographical database using semantic representations. The lexicon learned consists a corpus of queries collected from human subjects and of words paired with meaning representations. Wolfie annotated with their logical form. In this test, Wolfie is part of an integrated system that learns to parse was integrated with Chill, which learns parsers but novel sentences into semantic representations, such as requires a semantic lexicon (previously built manu- logical database queries. Experimental results are pre- ally). The results demonstrate that the final acquired sented demonstrating Wolfie’s ability to learn useful parser performs nearly as accurately at answering novel lexicons for a database interface in four different nat- questions when using a learned lexicon as when us- ural languages. The lexicons learned by Wolfie are compared to those acquired by a similar system devel- ing a hand-built lexicon. Wolfie is also compared oped by Siskind (1996). to an alternative lexicon acquisition system developed by Siskind (1996), demonstrating superior performance on this task. Finally, the corpus was translated into Introduction & Overview Spanish, Japanese, and Turkish and experiments con- The application of learning methods to natural- ducted demonstrating an ability to learn successful lexi- language processing (NLP) has drawn increasing atten- cons and parsers for a variety of languages. Overall, the tion in recent years. Using machine learning to help au- results demonstrate a robust ability to acquire accurate tomate the construction of NLP systems can eliminate lexicons directly usable for semantic parsing. With such much of the difficulty of manual construction. The se- an integrated system, the task of building a semantic mantic lexicon, or the mapping from words to meanings, parser for a new domain is simplified. A single repre- is one component that is typically challenging and time sentative corpus of sentence/representation pairs allows consuming to construct and update by hand. This pa- the acquisition of both a semantic lexicon and parser per describes a system, Wolfie (WOrd Learning From that generalizes well to novel sentences. Interpreted Examples), that acquires a semantic lexi- con of word/meaning pairs from a corpus of sentences Background paired with semantic representations. The goal of this Chill uses inductive logic programming (Muggleton research is to automate lexicon construction for an in- 1992; Lavra˘c & D˘zeroski 1994) to learn a determin- tegrated NLP system that acquires both semantic lexi- istic shift-reduce parser written in Prolog. The input cons and parsers for natural-language interfaces from a to Chill is a corpus of sentences paired with semantic single training set of annotated sentences. representations, the same input required by Wolfie. Although a few others (Siskind 1996; Hastings & The parser learned is capable of mapping the sentences Lytinen 1994; Brent 1991) have presented systems for into their correct representations, as well as generalizing learning information about lexical semantics, this work well to novel sentences. In this paper, we limit our dis- is unique in combining several features. First, inter- cussion to acquiring parsers that map natural-language action with a system, Chill (Zelle & Mooney 1996), questions directly into Prolog queries that can be ex- that learns to parse sentences into semantic representa- ecuted to produce an answer (Zelle & Mooney 1996). tions is demonstrated. Second, it uses a fairly straight- Following are two sample queries for a database on forward batch, greedy learning algorithm that is fast U.S. geography, paired with their corresponding Pro- and accurate. Third, it is easily extendible to new rep- log query: resentation formalisms. Fourth, no prior knowledge is What is the capital of the state with the biggest Copyright c 1999, American Association for Artificial population? Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. answer(C, (capital(S,C), largest(P, <Sentence, Representation> For each phrase, p (of at most two words): 1.1) Collect the training examples in which p appears Training Examples WOLFIE 1.2) Calculate LICS from (sampled) pairs of these examples’ representations 1.3) For each l in the LICS, add (p, l) to the set of candidate lexicon entries Until the input representations are covered, or there are no remaining candidate lexicon entries do: CHILL Lexicon 2.1) Add the best (phrase, meaning) pair to the lexicon 2.2) Update candidate meanings of phrases occurring <Phrase, Meaning> in the same sentences as the phrase just learned Return the lexicon of learned (phrase, meaning) pairs. Figure 2: Wolfie Algorithm Overview Final Parser Prolog and size of the learned lexicon, since this should im- prove accuracy and ease parser acquisition. Note that Figure 1: The Integrated System this notion of semantic lexicon acquisition is distinct from learning selectional restrictions (Manning 1993; Brent 1991) or clusters of semantically similar words (state(S), population(S,P))))). (Riloff & Sheperd 1997). What state is Texarkana located in? Note that we allow phrases to have multiple mean- answer(S, (state(S), ings (homonymy) and multiple phrases to have the same eq(C,cityid(texarkana, )), loc(C,S))). meaning (synonymy). Also, some phrases may have a null meaning. We make only a few fairly straight- Chill treats parser induction as a problem of learn- forward assumptions. First is compositionality: the ing rules to control the actions of a shift-reduce parser. meaning of a sentence is composed from the mean- During parsing, the current context is maintained in ings of phrases in that sentence. Since we allow multi- a stack and a buffer containing the remaining input. word phrases in the lexicon (e.g., ([kick the bucket], When parsing is complete, the stack contains the rep- die( ))), this assumption seems fairly unproblematic. resentation of the input sentence. There are three types Second, we assume each component of the represen- of operators used to construct logical queries. One is tation is due to the meaning of exactly one word or the introduction onto the stack of a predicate needed in phrase in the sentence, and not more than one or to the sentence representation due to the appearance of a an external source such as noise. Third, we assume the phrase at the front of the input buffer. A second type meaning for each word in a sentence appears at most of operator unifies variables appearing in stack items. once in the sentence’s representation. Finally, we as- Finally, a stack item may be embedded as an argument sume that a phrase’s meaning is a connected subgraph of another stack item. The introduction operators re- of a sentence’s representation, not a more distributed quire a semantic lexicon as background knowledge. By representation. The second and third assumptions are using Wolfie, the lexicon can be provided automati- preliminary, and we are exploring methods for relaxing cally. Figure 1 illustrates the complete system. them. If any of these assumptions are violated, Wolfie may not learn a covering lexicon; however, the system Problem Definition can still be run and produce a potentially useful result. A semantic lexicon learner is presented with a set of sentences, each consisting of an ordered list of words The Wolfie Algorithm and an Example and annotated with a semantic representation in the The Wolfie algorithm outlined in Figure 2 has been form of a labeled tree; the goal is to find a seman- implemented to handle two kinds of semantic represen- tic lexicon consistent with this data. Such a lexicon tations: a case-role form based on conceptual depen- consists of (phrase, meaning) pairs (e.g., ([biggest], dency (Schank 1975) and a logical query language il- largest( , ))), where the phrases and their mean- lustrated above. The current paper will focus on the latter; the changes required for the former are minimal. ings are extracted from the input sentences and their In order to limit search, a form of greedy set cover- representations, respectively, such that each sentence’s ing is used to find a covering lexicon. The first step is representation can be composed from a set of com- to derive an initial set of candidate meanings for each ponents each chosen from the possible meanings of possible phrase. The current implementation is limited a phrase appearing in the sentence. Such a lexi- to one and two word phrases, but easily extended to con is said to cover the corpus. We will also re- longer phrases with a linear increase in complexity. For fer to the coverage of components of a representa- example, consider the following corpus: tion (or sentence/representation pair) by a lexicon en- 1. What is the capital of the state with the biggest try. Ideally, the goal is to minimize the ambiguity population? answer(C, (capital(S,C), only one sentence (e.g., [located]), the entire sentence largest(P, (state(S), population(S,P))))). representation is used as an initial candidate meaning. 2. What is the highest point of the state with the biggest Such candidates are typically generalized in step 2.2 to area? only the correct portion of the representation before answer(P, (high point(S,P), they are added to the lexicon.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lexical Semantics I
    Semantic Theory: Lexical Semantics I Summer 2007 M.Pinkal/ S. Thater • 03-07-07 Lecture: Lexical Semantics I • 05-07-07 Lecture: Lexical Semantics II • 10-07-07 Lecture: Everything else • 12-07-07 Exercise: lexical Semantics • 17-07-07 Question time, Sample exam • 19-07-07 Individual question time • 25-07-07 Final exam, 11:00 (s.t.) Semantic Theory, SS 2007 © M. Pinkal, S. Thater 2 Structure of this course • Sentence semantics • Discourse semantics • Lexical semantics Semantic Theory, SS 2007 © M. Pinkal, S. Thater 3 Dolphins in First-order Logic Dolphins are mammals, not fish. !d (dolphin'(d)"mammal'(d) #¬fish'(d)) Dolphins live-in pods. !d (dolphin'(d)" $x (pod'(p)live-in'(d,p)) Dolphins give birth to one baby at a time. !d (dolphin'(d)" !x !y !t (give-birth-to' (d,x,t)give-birth-to' (d,y,t) " x=y) Semantic Theory, SS 2007 © M. Pinkal, S. Thater 4 Dolphins in First-order Logic Dolphins are mammals, not fish. !d (dolphin'(d)"mammal'(d) #¬fish'(d)) Dolphins live-in pods. !d (dolphin'(d)" $x (pod'(p)live-in'(d,p)) Dolphins give birth to one baby at a time. !d (dolphin'(d)" !x !y !t (give-birth-to' (d,x,t)give-birth-to' (d,y,t) " x=y) Semantic Theory, SS 2007 © M. Pinkal, S. Thater 5 The dolphin text Dolphins are mammals, not fish. They are warm blooded like man, and give birth to one baby called a calf at a time. At birth a bottlenose dolphin calf is about 90-130 cms long and will grow to approx.
    [Show full text]
  • LEXADV - a Multilingual Semantic Lexicon for Adverbs
    LEXADV - a multilingual semantic Lexicon for Adverbs Sanni Nimb Center for Sprogteknologi (CST) – Københavns Universitet Njalsgade 80, Copenhagen, Denmark [email protected] Abstract The LEXADV-project is a Scandinavian research project (2004-2006, financed by Nordplus Sprog) with the aim of extending three Scandinavian semantic lexicons building on the SIMPLE lexicon model (Lenci et al., 2000) with the word class of adverbs. In the lexicons of approx. 400 Danish, Norwegian and Swedish adverbs the different senses are described with a semantic type and a set of semantic features. A classification covering the many meanings that adverbs can have has been established and integrated in the original SIMPLE ontology. Similarly new features have been added to the model in order to describe the adverb senses. The working method of the project builds on the fact that the vocabularies of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are closely related. An encoding tool has been developed with the special purpose of permitting easy transfer of semantic types and features between entries in the three languages. The Danish adverb senses have been described first, based on the definition in a modern, comprehensive Danish dictionary. Afterwards the lemmas have been translated and the semantic data have been copied into the Swedish as well as into the Norwegian equivalent entry. Finally these copies have been evaluated and when necessary adjusted by native speakers. ’Telic’, ’Agentive’ and ’Constitutive’ has been extended 1. The Scandinavian SIMPLE Lexicons with three more semantic types. The first one, ’Functional’, covers adverb senses of 1.1. Background which the meaning must be described by logic expressions referring to sets, either in the context or in The Danish and the Swedish SIMPLE lexicons are the discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Semantic Lexicon and Similarity Measure in Bangla
    A New Semantic Lexicon and Similarity Measure in Bangla Manjira Sinha, Abhik Jana, Tirthankar Dasgupta, Anupam Basu Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur {manjira87, abhikjana1, iamtirthankar, anupambas}@gmail.com ABSTRACT The Mental Lexicon (ML) refers to the organization of lexical entries of a language in the human mind.A clear knowledge of the structure of ML will help us to understand how the human brain processes language. The knowledge of semantic association among the words in ML is essential to many applications. Although, there are works on the representation of lexical entries based on their semantic association in the form of a lexicon in English and other languages, such works of Bangla is in a nascent stage. In this paper, we have proposed a distinct lexical organization based on semantic association between Bangla words which can be accessed efficiently by different applications. We have developed a novel approach of measuring the semantic similarity between words and verified it against user study. Further, a GUI has been designed for easy and efficient access. KEYWORDS : Bangla Lexicon, Synset, Semantic Similarity, Hierarchical Graph 1 Introduction The lexicon of a language is a collection of lexical entries consisting of information regarding words and expressions, comprising both form and meaning (Levelt,). Form refers to the orthography, phonology and morphology of the lexical item and Meaning refers to its syntactic and semantic information. The term Mental Lexicon refers to the organization and interaction of lexical entries of a language in the human mind. Depending on the definition of word , an adult knows and uses around 40000 to 150000 words.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diachronic Semantic Lexicon of Dutch As Linked Open Data
    The Diachronic Semantic Lexicon of Dutch as Linked Open Data Katrien Depuydt, Jesse de Does Instituut voor de Nederlandse Taal Rapenburg 61, 2311GJ Leiden, The Netherlands [email protected], [email protected] Abstract This paper describes the Linked Open Data (LOD) model for the diachronic semantic lexicon DiaMaNT, currently under development at the Instituut voor de Nederlandse Taal (INT; Dutch Language Institute). The lexicon is part of a digital historical language infrastructure for Dutch at INT. This infrastructure, for which the core data is formed by the four major historical dictionaries of Dutch covering Dutch language from ca. 500 - ca 1976, currently consists of three modules: a dictionary portal, giving access to the historical dictionaries, a computational lexicon GiGaNT, providing information on words, their inflectional and spelling variation, and DiaMaNT, aimed at providing information on diachronic lexical variation (both semasiological and onomasiological). The DiaMaNT lexicon is built by adding a semantic layer to the word form lexicon GiGaNT, using the semantic information in the historical dictionaries. Ontolex-Lemon is a good point of departure for the LOD model, but we need extensions to be able to deal with the historical dictionary content incorporated in our lexicon. Keywords: Linked Open Data, Ontolex, Diachronic Lexicon, Semantic Lexicon, Historical Lexicography, Language Resources 1. Background digital, based on a closed corpus, in digital format. Hav- Even though Dutch lexicography1 can be dated back to the ing four scholarly dictionaries of Dutch in digital format 13th century with the glossarium Bernense, a Latin-Middle opened up opportunities for further exploitation of the con- Dutch word list, we had to wait until the 19th century for tents of these dictionaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Language Processing
    Chowdhury, G. (2003) Natural language processing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37. pp. 51-89. ISSN 0066-4200 http://eprints.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/2611/ This is an author-produced version of a paper published in The Annual Review of Information Science and Technology ISSN 0066-4200 . This version has been peer-reviewed, but does not include the final publisher proof corrections, published layout, or pagination. Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in Strathprints to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the url (http://eprints.cdlr.strath.ac.uk) of the Strathprints website. Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to The Strathprints Administrator: [email protected] Natural Language Processing Gobinda G. Chowdhury Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK e-mail: [email protected] Introduction Natural Language Processing (NLP) is an area of research and application that explores how computers can be used to understand and manipulate natural language text or speech to do useful things. NLP researchers aim to gather knowledge on how human beings understand and use language so that appropriate tools and techniques can be developed to make computer systems understand and manipulate natural languages to perform the desired tasks.
    [Show full text]
  • Linking Wordnet to the SIL Semantic Domains
    Bringing together over- and under-represented languages: Linking Wordnet to the SIL Semantic Domains Muhammad Zulhelmy bin Mohd Rosman Francis Bond and Frantisekˇ Kratochv´ıl Linguistics and Multilingual Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract English, Japanese and Finnish (Bond and Paik, 2012). We have created an open-source mapping SD is designed for rapid construction and in- between the SIL’s semantic domains (used tuitive organization of lexicons, not primarily for for rapid lexicon building and organiza- the analysis of the resulting data. As a result, tion for under-resourced languages) and many potentially interesting relationships are only WordNet, the standard resource for lexical implicitly realized. By linking SD to WN we semantics in natural language processing. can take advantage of the relationships modeled in We show that the resources complement WN to make more of these explicit. For example, each other, and suggest ways in which the the semantic relations in WN would be a useful mapping can be improved even further. input into SD while the domains hierarchy would The semantic domains give more general enforce the existing WN relations. This will al- domain and associative links, which word- low more quantitative computational modeling of net still has few of, while wordnet gives under-resourced languages. explicit semantic relations between senses, It is currently an exciting time for field lexicog- which the domains lack. raphy with better tools and hardware allowing for rapid digitization of lexical resources. Typically, 1 Introduction linguists tag text soon after they collect it.
    [Show full text]
  • Semanticnet-Perception of Human Pragmatics
    SemanticNet-Perception of Human Pragmatics Amitava Das 1 and Sivaji Bandyopadhyay 2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering Jadavpur University [email protected] 1 [email protected] 2 technical. It is often used in ordinary language Abstract to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. SemanticNet is a semantic network of We studied with various Psycholinguistics ex- lexicons to hold human pragmatic periments to understand how human natural knowledge. So far Natural Language intelligence helps to understand general se- Processing (NLP) research patronized mantic from nature. Our study was to under- much of manually augmented lexicon stand the human psychology about semantics resources such as WordNet. But the beyond language. We were haunting for the small set of semantic relations like intellectual structure of the psychological and Hypernym, Holonym, Meronym and neurobiological factors that enable humans to Synonym etc are very narrow to cap- acquire, use, comprehend and produce natural ture the wide variations human cogni- languages. Let’s come with an example of tive knowledge. But no such informa- simple conversation about movie between two tion could be retrieved from available persons. lexicon resources. SemanticNet is the Person A: Have you seen the attempt to capture wide range of con- movie ‘ No Man's Land’? How text dependent semantic inference is it? among various themes which human Person B: Although it is beings perceive in their pragmatic good but you should see knowledge, learned by day to day cog- ‘The Hurt Locker’? nitive interactions with the surrounding May be the conversation looks very casual, physical world.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Choices for Lexical Semantics
    1 Ten Choices for Lexical Semantics Sergei Nirenburg and Victor Raskin1 Computing Research Laboratory New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 {sergei,raskin}@crl.nmsu.edu Abstract. The modern computational lexical semantics reached a point in its de- velopment when it has become necessary to define the premises and goals of each of its several current trends. This paper proposes ten choices in terms of which these premises and goals can be discussed. It argues that the central questions in- clude the use of lexical rules for generating word senses; the role of syntax, prag- matics, and formal semantics in the specification of lexical meaning; the use of a world model, or ontology, as the organizing principle for lexical-semantic descrip- tions; the use of rules with limited scope; the relation between static and dynamic resources; the commitment to descriptive coverage; the trade-off between general- ization and idiosyncracy; and, finally, the adherence to the “supply-side” (method- oriented) or “demand-side” (task-oriented) ideology of research. The discussion is inspired by, but not limited to, the comparison between the generative lexicon ap- proach and the ontological semantic approach to lexical semantics. It is fair to say that lexical semantics, the study of word meaning and of its representation in the lexicon, experienced a powerful resurgence within the last decade.2 Traditionally, linguistic se- mantics has concerned itself with two areas, word meaning and sentence meaning. After the ascen- dancy of logic in the 1930s and especially after “the Chomskian revolution” of the late 1950s-early 1960s, most semanticists, including those working in the transformational and post-transforma- tional paradigm, focused almost exclusively on sentence meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • Filling Knowledge Gaps in a Broad-Coverage Machine Translation System*
    Filling Knowledge Gaps in a Broad-Coverage Machine Translation System* Kevin Knight, Ishwar Chander, Matthew Haines, Vasileios Hatzivassiloglou, Eduard Hovy, Masayo Lda, Steve K Luk, Richard Whitney, Kenji Yamada USC/Infonnation Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Manna del Rey, CA 90292 Abstract may be an unknown word, a missing grammar rule, a missing piece of world knowledge, etc A system can be Knowledge-based machine translation (KBMT) designed to respond to knowledge gaps in any number of techniques yield high quabty in domuoH with de• ways It may signal an error It may make a default or tailed semantic models, limited vocabulary, and random decision It may appeal to a human operator controlled input grammar Scaling up along these It may give up and turn over processing to a simpler, dimensions means acquiring large knowledge re• more robust MT program Our strategy is to use pro• sources It also means behaving reasonably when grams (sometimes statistical ones) that can operate on definitive knowledge is not yet available This pa more readily available data and effectively address par per describes how we can fill various KBMT know] ticular classes of KBMT knowledge gaps This gives us edge gap*, often using robust statistical techniques robust throughput and better quality than that of de• We describe quantitative and qualitative results fault decisions It also gives us a platform on which to from JAPANGLOSS, a broad-coverage Japanese- build and test knowledge bases that will product further English MT system improvements in quality
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches for Natural Language Processing (NLP)
    Approaches for Natural Language Processing (NLP) Thierry Hamon Institut Galil´ee- Universit´eParis 13,Villetaneuse, France & LIMSI-CNRS, Orsay, France [email protected] http://perso.limsi.fr/hamon/ March 2014 ERASMUS Mobility - M¨alardalen University (MDH) - V¨aster˚as- Sweden Thierry Hamon (LIMSI & Paris Nord) NLP Approaches March 2014 1 / 126 Introduction Plan Word and sentence segmentation Morphological analysis Parsing of texts Semantic analysis Thierry Hamon (LIMSI & Paris Nord) NLP Approaches March 2014 2 / 126 Segmentation Word and sentence segmentation Thierry Hamon (LIMSI & Paris Nord) NLP Approaches March 2014 3 / 126 Segmentation Introduction (1) Text: a set of characters (string) Segmentation of textual data: identification of a sublist of characters (substring) as a linguistic unit (word, sentence, phrase, term) But it is (very) difficult to define precisely a linguistic unit Linguistic unit identification: the first main step for the natural language processing Several further tasks depend on its quality: content analysis, indexing, part-of-speech tagging, multilingual alignment, etc. Thierry Hamon (LIMSI & Paris Nord) NLP Approaches March 2014 4 / 126 Segmentation Introduction (2) Why word and sentence segmentation? sentences: most of the grammars describe sentences words: basic information provided by dictionaries NB: Words can be simple (book) or complex/compound (French fries, spare time, one-way) Identification of two types of units: units with regular structure (punctuation, number, date, bibliographical references, etc. Units requiring a morphological analysis Thierry Hamon (LIMSI & Paris Nord) NLP Approaches March 2014 5 / 126 Segmentation Example 1: Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2003 Aug;67(8):1825-7. Related Articles, Links Comparative Analyses of Hairpin Substrate Recognition by Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis Ribonuclease P Ribozymes.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Acquiring Case Indexing Taxonomies from Text
    Towards Acquiring Case Indexing Taxonomies From Text Kalyan Moy Gupta1, 2 and David W. Aha2 1ITT Industries; AES Division; Alexandria, VA 22303 2Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence; Naval Research Laboratory (Code 5515); Washington, DC 20375 [email protected] Abstract this feature acquisition problem has not been addressed Taxonomic case-based reasoning is a conversational case- previously. The problem is further compounded by based reasoning methodology that employs feature Taxonomic CBR's need to organize features into subsumption taxonomies for incremental case retrieval. subsumption taxonomies (Gupta 2001). Fortunately, this Although this approach has several benefits over standard feature acquisition and organization problem can be retrieval approaches, methods for automatically acquiring addressed by knowledge extraction techniques (Cowie and these taxonomies from text documents do not exist, which Lehnert 1996), which aim to deduce knowledge artifacts limits its widespread implementation. To accelerate and such as rules, cases, and domain models from text. simplify feature acquisition and case indexing, we introduce However, knowledge extraction involves significantly more FACIT, a domain independent framework that combines deep natural language processing techniques and generative complex natural language processing (NLP) methods than lexicons to semi-automatically acquire case indexing do traditional information extraction (IE) approaches. taxonomies from text documents. FACIT employs a novel In this paper, we introduce knowledge extraction method to generate a logical form representation of text, and methodologies in the form of a domain independent uses it to automatically extract and organize features. In framework for feature acquisition and case indexing from contrast to standard information extraction approaches, text (FACIT).
    [Show full text]
  • A Semantic Approach for Extracting Domain Taxonomies from Text
    A Semantic Approach for Extracting Domain Taxonomies from Text Kevin Meijer, Flavius Frasincar∗, Frederik Hogenboom Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, NL-3000 DR, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Abstract In this paper we present a framework for the automatic building of a domain taxonomy from text corpora, called Automatic Taxonomy Construction from Text (ATCT). This framework comprises four steps. First, terms are extracted from a corpus of documents. From these extracted terms the ones that are most relevant for a specific domain are selected using a filtering approach in the second step. Third, the selected terms are disambiguated by means of a word sense disambiguation technique and concepts are generated. In the final step, the broader-narrower relations between concepts are determined using a subsumption technique that makes use of concept co-occurrences in text. For evaluation, we assess the performance of the ATCT framework using the semantic precision, semantic recall, and the taxonomic F-measure that take into account the concept semantics. The proposed framework is evaluated in the field of economics and management as well as the medical domain. Keywords: Taxonomy learning, word sense disambiguation, term extraction, subsumption method, semantic taxonomy evaluation 1. Introduction edge is required [5, 13]. Even if the required knowledge is available, it remains a tedious task to organize a high num- In a world where the amount of digital data grows over more ber of concepts in a proper manner. Therefore it is interest- than 50% per year, any means to structure this data becomes in- ing to find ways to automatically build taxonomies [40].
    [Show full text]