Advertisement

Dependency Graphs as a Generic Interface between Parsers and Relation Extraction Rule Learning

  • Peter Adolphs
  • Feiyu Xu
  • Hong Li
  • Hans Uszkoreit
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7006)

Abstract

In this paper, we propose to use dependency graphs rather than trees as the interface between a parser and the rule acquisition module of a relation extraction (RE) system. Dependency graphs are much more expressive than trees and can easily be adapted to the output representations of various parsers, in particular those with richer semantics. Our approach is built on top of an existing minimally supervised machine learning system for relation extraction. We extend its original tree-based interface to a graph-based representation. In our experiments, we make use of two different dependency parsers and a deep HPSG parser. As expected, switching to a graph representation for the parsers outputting dependency trees does not have any impact on the RE results. But using the graph-based representation for the extraction with deep HPSG analyses improves both recall and f-score of the RE and enables the system to extract more relation instances of higher arity. Furthermore, we also compare the performance among these parsers with respect to their contribution to the RE task. In general, the robust dependency parsers are good in recall. However, the fine-grained deep syntactic parsing wins when it comes to precision.

Keywords

Rule Learning Dependency Graph Semantic Role Dependency Tree Relation Extraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Callmeier, U.: Preprocessing and encoding techniques in PET. In: Oepen, S., Flickinger, D., Tsujii, J., Uszkoreit, H. (eds.) Collaborative Language Engineering. A Case Study in Efficient Grammar-based Processing. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Copestake, A.: Dependency and (R)MRS (December 2008), http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~aac10/papers/dmrs.pdf unpublished Draft (December 9, 2008)
  3. 3.
    Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C., Sag, I.A.: Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3(4) (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flickinger, D.: On building a more efficient grammar by exploiting types. Natural Language Engineering 6(1) (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greenwood, M., Stevenson, M., Guo, Y., Harkema, H., Roberts, A.: Automatically Acquiring a Linguistically Motivated Genic Interaction Extraction System. In: Proc. of the 4th Learning Language in Logic Workshop (LLL 2005), Bonn, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hara, T., Miyao, Y., Tsujii, J.: Adapting a probabilistic disambiguation model of an HPSG parser to a new domain. In: Dale, R., Wong, K.-F., Su, J., Kwong, O.Y. (eds.) IJCNLP 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3651, pp. 199–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein, D., Manning, C.D.: Fast exact inference with a factored model for natural language parsing. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 15 (NIPS 2002), vol. 15. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin, D.: Dependency-based evaluation of MINIPAR. In: Abeillé, A. (ed.) Treebanks - Building and Using Parsed Corpora. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Marneffe, M., Maccartney, B., Manning, C.: Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), Genoa, Italy (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Marneffe, M., Manning, C.D.: The stanford typed dependencies representation. In: Coling 2008: Proceedings of the Workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation, Manchester, UK (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miwa, M., Pyysalo, S., Hara, T., Tsujii, J.: A comparative study of syntactic parsers for event extraction. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Biomedical Natural Language Processing, Uppsala, Sweden (July 2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miyao, Y., Sagae, K., Satre, R., Matsuzaki, T., Tsujii, J.: Evaluating contributions of natural language parsers to protein-protein interaction extraction. Bioinformatics 25 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muslea, I.: Extraction patterns for information extraction tasks: A survey. In: AAAI Workshop on Machine Learning for Information Extraction, Orlando, Florida (July 1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pollard, C.J., Sag, I.A.: Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stevenson, M., Greenwood, M.A.: Comparing information extraction pattern models. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Extraction Beyond The Document. Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, Australia (July 2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sudo, K., Sekine, S., Grishman, R.: An improved extraction pattern representation model for automatic IE pattern acquisition. In: Proceedings of ACL 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sudo, K., Sekine, S., Grishman, R.: Automatic pattern acquisition for japanese information extraction. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Human Language Technology Research (HLT 2001), Morristown, NJ, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toutanova, K., Manning, C.D., Flickinger, D., Oepen, S.: Stochastic HPSG parse selection using the Redwoods corpus. Journal of Research on Language and Computation 3(1) (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uszkoreit, H., Xu, F., Li, H.: Analysis and improvement of minimally supervised machine learning for relation extraction. In: Horacek, H., Métais, E., Muñoz, R., Wolska, M. (eds.) NLDB 2009. LNCS, vol. 5723, pp. 8–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu, F.: Bootstrapping Relation Extraction from Semantic Seeds. Phd-thesis, Saarland University (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xu, F., Uszkoreit, H., Li, H.: A seed-driven bottom-up machine learning framework for extracting relations of various complexity. In: Proceedings of ACL 2007. Czech Republic, Prague (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yangarber, R.: Scenario Customization for Information Extraction. Dissertation, New York University, New York, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang, Y.: Robust Deep Linguistic Processing. Phd-thesis, Saarland University, Saarbruecken, Germany (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Adolphs
    • 1
  • Feiyu Xu
    • 1
  • Hong Li
    • 1
  • Hans Uszkoreit
    • 1
  1. 1.DFKI, LT-LabBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations