Advertisement

Relation Extraction Using Semantic Information

  • Jian Xu
  • Qin LuEmail author
  • Minglei Li
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 593)

Abstract

Research works on relation extraction have put a lot of attention on finding features of surface text and syntactic patterns between entities. Much less work is done using semantically relevant features between entities because semantic information is difficult to identify without manual annotation. In this paper, we present a work for relation extraction using semantic information as we believe that semantic information is the most relevant and the least noisy for relation extraction. More specifically, we consider entity type matching as one of the additional feature because two entities of a relation must be confined to certain entity types. We further explore the use of trigger words which are semantically relevant to each relation type. Entity type matching controls the selective preference of arguments that participate in a relation. Trigger words add more positive evidences that are closely related to the target relations, which in turn help to reduce noisy data. To avoid manual annotation, we develop an automatic trigger word identification algorithm based on topic modeling techniques. Relation extraction is then carried out by incorporating these two types of semantic information in a graphical model along with other commonly used features. Performance evaluation shows that our relation extraction method is very effective, outperforming the state-of-the-art system on the CoNLL-2004 dataset by over 13 % in F-score and the baseline system without using these semantic information on Wikipedia data by over 12 %.

Keywords

Relation extraction Semantic information Trigger word Entity type 

References

  1. 1.
    Banko, M., Cafarella, M. J., Soderland, S., Broadhead, M., Etzioni, O.: Open information extraction from the web. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, pp. 2670–2676 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blei, D., Ng, A., Jordan, M.: Latent Dirichlet Allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 993–1022 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brin, S.: Extracting patterns and relations from the world wide web. In: Atzeni, P., Mendelzon, A.O., Mecca, G. (eds.) WebDB 1998. LNCS, vol. 1590, pp. 172–183. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bunescu, R., Mooney, R.J.: A shortest path dependency kernel for relation extraction. In: Proceedings of the Conference on HLT-EMNLP, pp. 724–731 (2005a)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Culotta, A., McCallum, A., Betz, J.: Integrating probabilistic extraction models and data mining to discover relations and patterns in text. In: Proceedings of the main Conference on Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pp. 296–303 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duchi, J., Hazan, E., Singer, Y.: Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2121–2159 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Etzioni, O., Cafarella, M., Downey, D., Popescu, A.M., Shaked, T., Soderland, S., Weld, D.S., Yates, A.: Unsupervised named-entity extraction from the web: an experimental study. Artif. Intell. 165(1), 91–134 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoffmann, R., Zhang, C., Ling, X., Zettlemoyer, L., Weld, D.S.: Knowledge-based weak supervision for information extraction of overlapping relations. In: Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 541–550 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kambhatla, N.: Combining lexical, syntactic, and semantic features with maximum entropy models for extracting relations. In: Proceedings of the ACL 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kate, R.J., Mooney, R.J.: Joint entity and relation extraction using card-pyramid parsing. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 203–212 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lafferty, J.D., McCallum, A., Pereira, F.C.N.: Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 282–289 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu, Y., Shi, Z., Sarkar, A.: Exploiting rich syntactic information for relation extraction from biomedical articles. In: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 97–100 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCallum, A., Schultz, K., Singh, S.: Factorie: probabilistic programming via imperatively defined factor graphs. In: Bengio, Y., Schuurmans, D., Lafferty, J., Williams, C.K.I., Culotta, A. (eds.) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 22, pp. 1249-1257 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McDonald, R., Pereira, F., Kulick, S., Winters, S., Jin, Y., White, P.: Simple algorithms for complex relation extraction with applications to biomedical IE. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 491–498 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mintz, M., Bills, S., Snow, R., Jurafsky, D.: Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ravichandran, D., Hovy, E.: Learning surface text patterns for a question answering system. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Riedel, S., Yao, L., McCallum, A.: Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In: Balcázar, J.L., Bonchi, F., Gionis, A., Sebag, M. (eds.) ECML PKDD 2010, Part III. LNCS, vol. 6323, pp. 148–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosario, B., Hearst, M.A.: Classifying semantic relations in bioscience text. In: ACL 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roth, D., Yih, W.: Global inference for entity and relation identification via a linear programming formulation. In: Getoor, L., Taskar, B. (eds.) Introduction to Statistical Relational Learning. MIT Press (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wick, M., Rohanimanesh, K., Culotta, A., McCallum, A.: Samplerank: learning preferences from atomic gradients. In: Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), Workshop on Advances in Ranking (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zelenko, D., Aone, C., Richardella, A.: Kernel methods for relation extraction. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 1083–1106 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhao, S., Grishman, R.: Extracting relations with integrated information using kernel methods. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 419–426 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung HomHong Kong

Personalised recommendations