Statistical Models for Frame-Semantic Parsing Dipanjan Das * Google - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

statistical models for frame semantic parsing
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Statistical Models for Frame-Semantic Parsing Dipanjan Das * Google - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Statistical Models for Frame-Semantic Parsing Dipanjan Das * Google Frame Semantics in NLP: A Workshop in Honor of Chuck Fillmore June 27, 2014 * Thanks to Desai Chen, Kuzman Ganchev, Karl Moritz Hermann, Andr Martins, Nathan Schneider, Noah


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Statistical Models for Frame-Semantic Parsing

Dipanjan Das* Google

Frame Semantics in NLP: A Workshop in Honor of Chuck Fillmore June 27, 2014

*Thanks to Desai Chen, Kuzman Ganchev, Karl Moritz Hermann,

André Martins, Nathan Schneider, Noah Smith and Jason Weston

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Frame-Semantic Parsing

I want to travel to Baltimore

  • n

Sunday

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

I want to travel to

  • n

Sunday

TRAVEL

Encodes an event or scenario

Baltimore

Frame-Semantic Parsing

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

I want to travel to

  • n

Sunday

TRAVEL

Participant or role for the frame

Traveler Time Goal

Baltimore

Frame-Semantic Parsing

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

I want to travel to

  • n

Sunday

TRAVEL

Participant or role for the frame

Traveler Time Goal

Baltimore

Frame-Semantic Parsing

DESIRING

Experiencer

Event

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Outline

  • Why should we build statistical models for

frame semantics?

  • Overview of statistical methods
  • Future directions

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Outline

  • Why should we build statistical models for

frame semantics?

  • Overview of statistical methods
  • Future directions

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Motivation

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Motivation

Deeper understanding beyond syntax

8

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Motivation

Deeper understanding beyond syntax Grouping of predicates and arguments into clusters

8

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Motivation

Deeper understanding beyond syntax Grounding of natural language to an ontology Grouping of predicates and arguments into clusters

8

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Motivation

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Motivation

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Store or financial entity?

Motivation

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Store of what? Of what size? Whose store?

Motivation

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Store of what? Of what size? Whose store?

Motivation

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-17
SLIDE 17

What was reduced? To what?

Motivation

Bengal ’s massive stock of food wasreducedto nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-18
SLIDE 18

What was reduced? To what?

Motivation

Bengal ’s massive stock of food wasreducedto nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

STORE

Possessor Desc Resource

CAUSE_CHANGE_OF_POSITION_ON_A_SCALE

Value_2 Item

Motivation

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Motivation

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Motivation

James Cameron directed Titanic

BEHIND_THE_SCENES

Artist Production

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Motivation

James Cameron directed Titanic

BEHIND_THE_SCENES

Artist Production

James Cameron is Titanic’s director

BEHIND_THE_SCENES

Production Artist

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Motivation

James Cameron directed Titanic

BEHIND_THE_SCENES

Artist Production

James Cameron is Titanic’s director

BEHIND_THE_SCENES

Production Artist

Grouping across syntactic categories

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Motivation

James Cameron filmed Titanic

BEHIND_THE_SCENES

Artist Production

James Cameron is Titanic’s director

BEHIND_THE_SCENES

Production Artist

Grouping across different lemmas

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Motivation

James Cameron filmed Titanic

film.01

ARG0

James Cameron is Titanic’s director

director.01

ARG2 ARG0 ARG1

from PropBank from NomBank

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Motivation

James Cameron filmed Titanic

film.01

ARG0

James Cameron is Titanic’s director

director.01

ARG2 ARG0 ARG1

from PropBank from NomBank

Hard to align different lemmas across resources

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Motivation

James Cameron filmed Titanic

film.01

ARG0

James Cameron is Titanic’s director

director.01

ARG2 ARG0 ARG1

from PropBank from NomBank

Very generic argument labels

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Motivation

James Cameron filmed Titanic

film.01

ARG0

James Cameron is Titanic’s director

director.01

ARG2 ARG0 ARG1

from PropBank from NomBank

Argument labels do not match up

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Motivation

James Cameron filmed Titanic in 1997

BEHIND_THE_SCENES

Artist Production

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Motivation

James Cameron filmed Titanic in 1997

BEHIND_THE_SCENES

Artist Production

λe.filmed.arg1(e, James Cameron)∧filmed.arg2(e, Titanic)∧filmed.in(e, 1997)

slide-31
SLIDE 31

λe.filmed.arg1(e, /m/03 gd) ∧ filmed.arg2(e, /m/0dr 4) ∧ filmed.in(e, 1997)

Motivation

James Cameron filmed Titanic in 1997

BEHIND_THE_SCENES

Artist Production

λe.filmed.arg1(e, James Cameron)∧filmed.arg2(e, Titanic)∧filmed.in(e, 1997)

slide-32
SLIDE 32

λe.filmed.arg1(e, /m/03 gd) ∧ filmed.arg2(e, /m/0dr 4) ∧ filmed.in(e, 1997)

Motivation

λe.filmed.arg1(e, James Cameron)∧filmed.arg2(e, Titanic)∧filmed.in(e, 1997)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

λe.filmed.arg1(e, /m/03 gd) ∧ filmed.arg2(e, /m/0dr 4) ∧ filmed.in(e, 1997)

Motivation

λe.filmed.arg1(e, James Cameron)∧filmed.arg2(e, Titanic)∧filmed.in(e, 1997)

λe.BEHIND THE SCENES.Artist(e, /m/03 gd)∧ ∧ BEHIND THE SCENES.Production(e, /m/0dr 4)∧ BEHIND THE SCENES.Time(e, 1997)

FrameNet

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Applications of Frame-Semantic Parsing

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Stance Classification

  • Frame Semantics for Stance Classification

Hasan and Ng (CoNLL 2013)

  • Two sided debates in an online forum
  • Classification of stance
  • Improvement over a baseline that uses

bag of words and dependencies

25

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Dialog Systems

  • Unsupervised Induction and Filling of Semantic

Slots for Spoken Dialogue Systems Using Frame- Semantic Parsing Chen, Wang and Rudnicky (ASRU 2013)

  • Annotation of dialog transcripts with frame-

semantic structures

  • Uses only a subset of frames
  • Uses these annotations for slot induction

26

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Stock Price Movement

  • Semantic Frames to Predict Stock Price Movement

Xie et al. (ACL 2013)

  • Predict the change in stock price from financial

news

  • Lots of features along with features based on

frames and roles

  • Shows improvements over other features

27

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Summarization

  • Generating Automated Meeting Summaries

Thomas Kleinbauer (PhD thesis, Saarland University)

  • Part of a large system for generating meeting

summaries

28

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Outline

  • Why should we build statistical models for

frame semantics?

  • Overview of statistical methods
  • Future directions

29

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Structure of Lexicon and Data

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Structure of Lexicon and Data

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

frame

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Structure of Lexicon and Data

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

roles frame

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Structure of Lexicon and Data

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

core roles non-core roles frame

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Structure of Lexicon and Data

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

excludes relationship core roles non-core roles frame

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Structure of Lexicon and Data

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

excludes relationship core roles non-core roles frame

archive.V, arrange.V, bag.V, bestow.V bin.V

predicates

slide-46
SLIDE 46

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

DISPERSAL

Agent Cause Individuals Distance Time

TRANSITIVE_ACTION

Agent Cause Patient Event Place Time

INSTALLING

Agent Component Fixed_location Area Time

STORING

Agent Location Theme Area Time

STORE

Possessor Resource Supply Descriptor

Structure of Lexicon and Data

slide-47
SLIDE 47

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

DISPERSAL

Agent Cause Individuals Distance Time

TRANSITIVE_ACTION

Agent Cause Patient Event Place Time

INSTALLING

Agent Component Fixed_location Area Time

STORING

Agent Location Theme Area Time

STORE

Possessor Resource Supply Descriptor

Structure of Lexicon and Data

slide-48
SLIDE 48

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

DISPERSAL

Agent Cause Individuals Distance Time

TRANSITIVE_ACTION

Agent Cause Patient Event Place Time

INSTALLING

Agent Component Fixed_location Area Time

STORING

Agent Location Theme Area Time

STORE

Possessor Resource Supply Descriptor

Structure of Lexicon and Data inheritance used by

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Datasets

Benchmark Dataset (SemEval 2007)

665 frames 720 role labels 8.4K unique predicate types

Training set:

2.2K sentences 11.2K predicate tokens

Test set: 120 sentences

  • 1. 1K predicate tokens
slide-50
SLIDE 50

LTH Frame-Semantic Parser

Johansson and Nugues (2007)

Frame Identification Argument Filtering Argument Labeling

40

slide-51
SLIDE 51

LTH Frame-Semantic Parser

Johansson and Nugues (2007)

Frame Identification Argument Filtering Argument Labeling

41

slide-52
SLIDE 52

LTH Frame-Semantic Parser

Johansson and Nugues (2007)

ambiguous

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-53
SLIDE 53

LTH Frame-Semantic Parser

Johansson and Nugues (2007)

Find the best among all frames Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-54
SLIDE 54

LTH Frame-Semantic Parser

Johansson and Nugues (2007) Taken from an SVM classifier trained on ambiguous predicates

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-55
SLIDE 55

LTH Frame-Semantic Parser

Johansson and Nugues (2007)

To increase coverage, potential predicates were extracted from WordNet and automatically frame labels were selected for them.

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-56
SLIDE 56

Frame Identification Accuracy

50.0 61.3 72.5 83.8 95.0

LTH

57.3

F-Measure

LTH Frame-Semantic Parser

Johansson and Nugues (2007)

slide-57
SLIDE 57

LTH Frame-Semantic Parser

Johansson and Nugues (2007)

Frame Identification Argument Filtering Argument Labeling

47

slide-58
SLIDE 58

Argument Filtering

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

STORE

massive stock

slide-59
SLIDE 59

Argument Filtering

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

STORE

massive stock Bengal ’s Bengal massive stock

  • f food

food massive Bengal ’s massive to nothing to

  • f

’s

Potential Arguments

slide-60
SLIDE 60

Argument Filtering

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

STORE

massive stock Bengal ’s Bengal massive stock

  • f food

food massive Bengal ’s massive to nothing to

  • f

’s

Potential Arguments

Binary SVM Classification

slide-61
SLIDE 61

LTH Frame-Semantic Parser

Johansson and Nugues (2007)

Frame Identification Argument Filtering Argument Labeling

50

slide-62
SLIDE 62

Argument Filtering

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

STORE

massive stock

Multiclass SVM Classification

slide-63
SLIDE 63

Argument Filtering

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

STORE

massive stock Bengal ’s Bengal massive stock

  • f food

food massive Bengal ’s massive to nothing to

  • f

’s

Potential Arguments

Multiclass SVM Classification

slide-64
SLIDE 64

Argument Filtering

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

STORE

massive stock Bengal ’s Bengal massive stock

  • f food

food massive Bengal ’s massive to nothing to

  • f

’s

Potential Arguments

Multiclass SVM Classification

Possessor Resource Descriptor

ø

slide-65
SLIDE 65

Full Frame-Semantic Structure Prediction

35.0 43.8 52.5 61.3 70.0

LTH

44.4

F-Measure

LTH Frame-Semantic Parser

Johansson and Nugues (2007)

slide-66
SLIDE 66

SEMAFOR

Das, Chen, Martins, Schneider, Smith (2014)

Frame Identification Argument Identification

54

slide-67
SLIDE 67

SEMAFOR

Das, Chen, Martins, Schneider, Smith (2014)

Frame Identification Argument Identification

55

slide-68
SLIDE 68

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-69
SLIDE 69

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-70
SLIDE 70

Logistic regression with a latent variable

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

slide-71
SLIDE 71

Logistic regression with a latent variable

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

slide-72
SLIDE 72

Logistic regression with a latent variable

Predicates evoking a frame in supervised data, e.g.

cargo.N, inventory.N, reserve.N, stockpile.N, store.N, supply.N

evoke STORE

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

slide-73
SLIDE 73

STORE

stock.N stockpile.N

Bengal ’s massive stock

  • f food was reduced

to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

slide-74
SLIDE 74

STORE

stock.N stockpile.N

Bengal ’s massive stock

  • f food was reduced

to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

LexSem = {synonym}

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

slide-75
SLIDE 75

STORE

stock.N stockpile.N

Bengal ’s massive stock

  • f food was reduced

to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

LexSem = {synonym}

If

STORE stockpile.N

synonym LexSem

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

slide-76
SLIDE 76

STORE

stock.N stockpile.N

Bengal ’s massive stock

  • f food was reduced

to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

LexSem = {synonym}

If

STORE stockpile.N

synonym LexSem

comes from WordNet!

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

slide-77
SLIDE 77

Datasets

New Data (FrameNet 1.5, 2010)

877 frames 1068 role labels 9.3K unique predicate types

Training set:

3.3K sentences 19.6K predicate tokens

Test set: 2420 sentences 4.5K predicate tokens Benchmark Dataset (SemEval 2007)

665 frames 720 role labels 8.4K unique predicate types

Training set:

2.2K sentences 11.2K predicate tokens

Test set: 120 sentences

  • 1. 1K predicate tokens
slide-78
SLIDE 78

New Data (FrameNet 1.5, 2010)

877 frames 1068 role labels 9.3K unique predicate types

Training set:

3.3K sentences 19.6K predicate tokens

Test set: 2420 sentences 4.5K predicate tokens Benchmark Dataset (SemEval 2007)

665 frames 720 role labels 8.4K unique predicate types

Training set:

2.2K sentences 11.2K predicate tokens

Test set: 120 sentences

  • 1. 1K predicate tokens

Datasets

slide-79
SLIDE 79

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification Results Benchmark

50.0 61.3 72.5 83.8 95.0

LTH SEMAFOR

61 57.3

F-Measure

New Data

log-linear

slide-80
SLIDE 80

Results Benchmark

50.0 61.3 72.5 83.8 95.0

LTH SEMAFOR

61 57.3

F-Measure

New Data

log-linear

auto predicates

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

slide-81
SLIDE 81

Results Benchmark

50.0 61.3 72.5 83.8 95.0

LTH SEMAFOR

61 57.3

F-Measure

New Data

log-linear

auto predicates

50.0 61.3 72.5 83.8 95.0

SEMAFOR

83.0

Accuracy

log-linear

gold predicates

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

slide-82
SLIDE 82

20.0 38.8 57.5 76.3 95.0

All Predicates

83.0

Accuracy

20.0 38.8 57.5 76.3 95.0

Unknown Predicates

23.1

Accuracy

Frame Identification

SEMAFOR: Frame Identification

slide-83
SLIDE 83

SEMAFOR: Handling Unknown Predicates

Knowledge of only 9,263 predicates in supervised data

slide-84
SLIDE 84

Knowledge of only 9,263 predicates in supervised data However, English has lot more potential predicates (~65,000 in newswire English)

SEMAFOR: Handling Unknown Predicates

slide-85
SLIDE 85

Knowledge of only 9,263 predicates in supervised data However, English has lot more potential predicates (~65,000 in newswire English)

Lexicon expansion using graph-based semi-supervised learning

SEMAFOR: Handling Unknown Predicates

slide-86
SLIDE 86

How can label propagation help?

slide-87
SLIDE 87

Example Graph

Seed predicates

slide-88
SLIDE 88

Example Graph

Seed predicates Unseen predicates

slide-89
SLIDE 89

Example Graph

Seed predicates Unseen predicates

Graph Propagation

slide-90
SLIDE 90

Example Graph

Seed predicates Unseen predicates

Graph Propagation

slide-91
SLIDE 91

Example Graph

Seed predicates Unseen predicates

Graph Propagation

Continues till convergence...

slide-92
SLIDE 92

15.0 28.8 42.5 56.3 70.0

Supervised Self-Training Graph-Based

42.7 18.9 23.1

Accuracy

Frame Identification

SEMAFOR: Unknown Predicates

slide-93
SLIDE 93

SEMAFOR

Das, Chen, Martins, Schneider, Smith (2014)

Frame Identification Argument Identification

81

slide-94
SLIDE 94

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

STORE

slide-95
SLIDE 95

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

STORE Possessor Resource Supply Use Descriptor

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-96
SLIDE 96

stock

STORE Possessor Resource Supply Use Descriptor

Bengal ’s Bengal massive stock

  • f food

food massive Bengal ’s massive massive stock

ø

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-97
SLIDE 97

stock

STORE Possessor Resource Supply Use Descriptor

Bengal ’s Bengal massive stock

  • f food

food massive Bengal ’s massive massive stock

ø

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-98
SLIDE 98

stock

STORE Possessor Resource Supply Use Descriptor

Bengal ’s Bengal massive stock

  • f food

food massive Bengal ’s massive massive stock

ø

Violates overlap constraints

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-99
SLIDE 99

Other types of structural constraints

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

Mutual exclusion constraint

archive.V, arrange.V, bag.V, bestow.V bin.V

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-100
SLIDE 100

Other types of structural constraints

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

Mutual exclusion constraint

archive.V, arrange.V, bag.V, bestow.V bin.V

If an agent places something, there cannot be a cause role in the sentence

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-101
SLIDE 101

Other types of structural constraints

PLACING

Agent Cause Goal Theme Area Time

Mutual exclusion constraint

archive.V, arrange.V, bag.V, bestow.V bin.V

The waiter placed food on the table. In Kabul, hauling water put food on the table.

Cause Agent

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-102
SLIDE 102

Other types of structural constraints

SIMILARITY

Dimension Differentiating_fact Entity_1 Entity_2 Degree

Requires constraint

difference.N, resemble.V, unliike.A, vary.V

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-103
SLIDE 103

Other types of structural constraints

SIMILARITY

Dimension Differentiating_fact Entity_1 Entity_2 Degree

Requires constraint

difference.N, resemble.V, unliike.A, vary.V

A mulberry resembles a loganberry.

second entity first entity

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-104
SLIDE 104

Other types of structural constraints

SIMILARITY

Dimension Differentiating_fact Entity_1 Entity_2 Degree

Requires constraint

difference.N, resemble.V, unliike.A, vary.V

A mulberry resembles.

!

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-105
SLIDE 105

stock

STORE Possessor Resource Supply Use Descriptor

Bengal ’s Bengal massive stock

  • f food

food massive Bengal ’s massive massive stock

ø

A constrained

  • ptimization

problem

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-106
SLIDE 106

stock

STORE Possessor Resource Supply Use Descriptor

Bengal ’s Bengal massive stock

  • f food

food massive Bengal ’s massive massive stock

ø

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-107
SLIDE 107

stock

STORE Possessor Resource Supply Use Descriptor

Bengal ’s Bengal massive stock

  • f food

food massive Bengal ’s massive massive stock

ø

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-108
SLIDE 108

A constrained optimization problem

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-109
SLIDE 109

A constrained optimization problem

a binary variable for each role, span tuple SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-110
SLIDE 110

A constrained optimization problem

a binary vector for all role, span tuples SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-111
SLIDE 111

A constrained optimization problem

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-112
SLIDE 112

A constrained optimization problem

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-113
SLIDE 113

A constrained optimization problem Uniqueness

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-114
SLIDE 114

A constrained optimization problem

Prevents overlap

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-115
SLIDE 115

A constrained optimization problem

more structural constraints

An integer linear program (ILP)

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-116
SLIDE 116

A constrained optimization problem

more structural constraints

An integer linear program (ILP)

Punyakanok, Roth and Yih (2008)

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-117
SLIDE 117

A constrained optimization problem

more structural constraints

An integer linear program (ILP) Often, very slow solutions

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-118
SLIDE 118

A constrained optimization problem

more structural constraints

An integer linear program (ILP) Fast ILP solvers proprietary

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-119
SLIDE 119

A constrained optimization problem

more structural constraints

An integer linear program (ILP) Dual Decomposition

SEMAFOR: Argument Identification

slide-120
SLIDE 120

SEMAFOR: Frame-Semantic Parsing Final Results Benchmark

35.0 43.8 52.5 61.3 70.0

LTH SEMAFOR

46.5 42.0

F-Measure

New Data

slide-121
SLIDE 121

SEMAFOR: Frame-Semantic Parsing Final Results Benchmark

35.0 43.8 52.5 61.3 70.0

LTH SEMAFOR

46.5 42.0

F-Measure

New Data

auto predicates

slide-122
SLIDE 122

SEMAFOR: Frame-Semantic Parsing Final Results Benchmark

35.0 43.8 52.5 61.3 70.0

LTH SEMAFOR

46.5 42.0

F-Measure

New Data

auto predicates

35.0 43.8 52.5 61.3 70.0

SEMAFOR

64.5

F-Measure

gold predicates

slide-123
SLIDE 123

Hermann, Das, Weston and Ganchev ACL 2014

111

slide-124
SLIDE 124

112

Frame Identification with Embeddings

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-125
SLIDE 125

112

Frame Identification with Embeddings

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-126
SLIDE 126

113

Frame Identification with Embeddings

Discrete lexical features Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

slide-127
SLIDE 127

114

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

Frame Identification with Embeddings

Syntactic context words connected via a set of dependency paths

amod

; massive

prep pobj

; food

nsubjpass auxpass ;

was ... ; ...

slide-128
SLIDE 128

115

Bengal ’s massive stock of food was reduced to nothing

N X A N ADP N V V ADP N

Frame Identification with Embeddings

amod

; massive

prep pobj

; food

nsubjpass auxpass ;

was

amod

;

prep pobj

;

nsubjpass auxpass ;

Replace context words with off-the-shelf word embeddings

... ; ... ... ; ...

slide-129
SLIDE 129

116

Frame Identification with Embeddings

amod

; massive

prep pobj

; food

nsubjpass auxpass ;

was

amod

;

prep pobj

;

nsubjpass auxpass ;

... ; ... ... ; ...

amod nsubj dobj >prep>pobj p <nsubjpass>auxpass

...

Input sparse embedding vector with context blocks

slide-130
SLIDE 130

117

Frame Identification with Embeddings

Frame instance space N × Rd

slide-131
SLIDE 131

117

Frame Identification with Embeddings

Frame instance space N × Rd Joint Space Rm

slide-132
SLIDE 132

117

Frame Identification with Embeddings

Frame instance space N × Rd Joint Space Rm Frame Instance Map M : Rd → Rm

slide-133
SLIDE 133

117

Frame Identification with Embeddings

Frame instance space N × Rd Joint Space Rm Frame Instance Map M : Rd → Rm Set of FrameNet labels

STORE STORING STINGINESS ... ...

slide-134
SLIDE 134

117

Frame Identification with Embeddings

Frame instance space N × Rd Joint Space Rm Frame Instance Map M : Rd → Rm Set of FrameNet labels

STORE STORING STINGINESS ... ...

Y ∈ RF ×m

Label matrix

slide-135
SLIDE 135

117

Frame Identification with Embeddings

Frame instance space N × Rd Joint Space Rm Frame Instance Map M : Rd → Rm Set of FrameNet labels

STORE STORING STINGINESS ... ...

Y ∈ RF ×m

Label matrix learned learned

slide-136
SLIDE 136

118

Frame Identification with Embeddings

slide-137
SLIDE 137

118

Frame Identification with Embeddings

frame instances

slide-138
SLIDE 138

118

Frame Identification with Embeddings

frame instances frame labels

slide-139
SLIDE 139

119

Frame Identification with Embeddings

frame instances frame labels ? test predicate

slide-140
SLIDE 140

119

Frame Identification with Embeddings

frame instances frame labels ? test predicate

slide-141
SLIDE 141

120

Frame Identification with Embeddings

frame instances frame labels ? test predicate

slide-142
SLIDE 142

120

Frame Identification with Embeddings

frame instances frame labels ?

slide-143
SLIDE 143

121

Frame Identification with Embeddings

frame instances frame labels ?

slide-144
SLIDE 144

15.0 28.8 42.5 56.3 70.0

Supervised Self-Training Graph-Based Embeddings

46.15 42.7 18.9 23.1

Accuracy

Frame Identification

Results on Unknown Predicates SEMAFOR

slide-145
SLIDE 145

75.0 78.8 82.5 86.3 90.0

Supervised Self-Training Graph-Based Embeddings

86.49 83.6 82.3 83.0

Accuracy

Frame Identification

Results on All Predicates SEMAFOR

slide-146
SLIDE 146

60.0 62.5 65.0 67.5 70.0

Supervised Graph-Based Embeddings

68.7 64.5 64.1

F-Score

Frame-Semantic Parsing

Final Results SEMAFOR

slide-147
SLIDE 147

Outline

  • Why should we build statistical models for

frame semantics?

  • Overview of statistical methods
  • Future directions

125

slide-148
SLIDE 148

Better Models

  • Very little research on argument identification
  • More non-local features
  • Using distributed representations
  • Generalization using PropBank resources

126

slide-149
SLIDE 149

Data

  • Number of FrameNet annotated sentences ~30

times less than PropBank/Ontonotes.

  • Number of argument labels ~30 times more
  • To make systems usable, we need annotations
  • inter-annotator agreement studies
  • annotation guidelines

127

slide-150
SLIDE 150

Custom FrameNets

  • Is a general FrameNet lexicon useful?
  • often, FrameNet frames are too general or

too specific

  • is it possible to quickly build customized

FrameNet lexicons for applications?

  • is it possible to use PropBank-style frames

to induce FrameNet-style frames?

128

slide-151
SLIDE 151

Conclusions

  • Lot of exciting work in predicate-argument

structure prediction

  • Semi-supervised methods improve coverage
  • Systems trained on small amounts of

FrameNet-style data shown to be useful

  • More annotations will result in usable systems

129

slide-152
SLIDE 152

Thank You

130