Relation schemas are often pre-defined for each relation dataset. Relation types can be related from different datasets and have overlapping semantics. We hypothesize we can combine these datasets according to the semantic relatedness between the relation types to overcome the problem of lack of training data. It is often easy to discover the connection between relation types based on relation names or annotation guides, but hard to measure the exact similarity and take advantage of the connection between the relation types from different datasets. We propose to use prototypical examples to represent each relation type and use these examples to augment related types from a different dataset. We obtain further improvement (ACE05) with this type augmentation over a strong baseline which uses multi-task learning between datasets to obtain better feature representation for relations. We make our implementation publicly available: https://github.com/fufrank5/relatedness

Typical relation extraction models are trained on a single corpus annotated with a pre-defined relation schema. An individual corpus is often small, and the models may often be biased or overfitted to the corpus. We hypothesize that we can learn a better representation by combining multiple relation datasets. We attempt to use a shared encoder to learn the unified feature representation and to augment it with regularization by adversarial training. The additional corpora feeding the encoder can help to learn a better feature representation layer even though the relation schemas are different. We use ACE05 and ERE datasets as our case study for experiments. The multi-task model obtains significant improvement on both datasets.

Relations are expressed in many domains such as newswire, weblogs and phone conversations. Trained on a source domain, a relation extractor’s performance degrades when applied to target domains other than the source. A common yet labor-intensive method for domain adaptation is to construct a target-domain-specific labeled dataset for adapting the extractor. In response, we present an unsupervised domain adaptation method which only requires labels from the source domain. Our method is a joint model consisting of a CNN-based relation classifier and a domain-adversarial classifier. The two components are optimized jointly to learn a domain-independent representation for prediction on the target domain. Our model outperforms the state-of-the-art on all three test domains of ACE 2005.

The task of Named Entity Linking is to link entity mentions in the document to their correct entries in a knowledge base and to cluster NIL mentions. Ambiguous, misspelled, and incomplete entity mention names are the main challenges in the linking process. We propose a novel approach that combines two state-of-the-art models ― for entity disambiguation and for paraphrase detection ― to overcome these challenges. We consider name variations as paraphrases of the same entity mention and adopt a paraphrase model for this task. Our approach utilizes a graph-based disambiguation model based on Personalized Page Rank, and then refines and clusters its output using the paraphrase similarity between entity mention strings. It achieves a competitive performance of 80.5% in B3+F clustering score on diagnostic TAC EDL 2014 data.

The Knowledge Based Population (KBP) evaluation track of the Text Analysis Conferences (TAC) has been held for the past 3 years. One of the two tasks of KBP is slot filling: finding within a large corpus the values of a set of attributes of given people and organizations. This task has proven very challenging, with top systems rarely exceeding 30% F-measure. In this paper, we present an error analysis and classification for those answers which could be found by a manual corpus search but were not found by any of the systems participating in the 2010 evaluation. The most common sources of failure were limitations on inference, errors in coreference (particularly with nominal anaphors), and errors in named entity recognition. We relate the types of errors to the characteristics of the task and show the wide diversity of problems that must be addressed to improve overall performance.

The term “event extraction” covers a wide range of information extraction tasks, and methods developed and evaluated for one task may prove quite unsuitable for another. Understanding these task differences is essential to making broad progress in event extraction. We look back at the MUC and ACE tasks in terms of one characteristic, the breadth of the scenario ― how wide a range of information is subsumed in a single extraction task. We examine how this affects strategies for collecting information and methods for semi-supervised training of new extractors. We also consider the heterogeneity of corpora ― how varied the topics of documents in a corpus are. Extraction systems may be intended in principle for general news but are typically evaluated on topic-focused corpora, and this evaluation context may affect system design. As one case study, we examine the task of identifying physical attack events in news corpora, observing the effect on system performance of shifting from an attack-event-rich corpus to a more varied corpus and considering how the impact of this shift may be mitigated.

This paper focuses on the influence of changing the text time frame on the performance of a named entity tagger. We followed a twofold approach to investigate this subject: on the one hand, we analyzed a corpus that spans 8 years, and, on the other hand, we assessed the performance of a name tagger trained and tested on that corpus. We created 8 samples from the corpus, each drawn from the articles for a particular year. In terms of corpus analysis, we calculated the corpus similarity and names shared between samples. To see the effect on tagger performance, we implemented a semi-supervised name tagger based on co-training; then, we trained and tested our tagger on those samples. We observed that corpus similarity, names shared between samples, and tagger performance all decay as the time gap between the samples increases. Furthermore, we observed that the corpus similarity and names shared correlate with the tagger F-measure. These results show that named entity recognition systems may become obsolete in a short period of time.

This paper describes a sentence alignment technique based on a machine readable dictionary. Alignment takes place in a single pass through the text, based on the scores of matches between pairs of source and target sentences. Pairings consisting of sets of matches are evaluated using a version of the Gale-Shapely solution to the stable marriage problem. An algorithm is described which can handle N-to-1 (or 1-to-N) matches, for n ≥ 0, i.e., deletions, 1-to-1 (including scrambling), and 1-to-many matches. A simple frequency based method for acquiring supplemental dictionary entries is also discussed. We achieve high quality alignments using available bilingual dictionaries, both for closely related language pairs (Spanish/English) and more distantly related pairs (Japanese/English).

The availability of large, syntactically-bracketed corpora such as the Penn Tree Bank affords us the opportunity to automatically build or train broad-coverage grammars, and in particular to train probabilistic grammars. A number of recent parsing experiments have also indicated that grammars whose production probabilities are dependent on the context can be more effective than context-free grammars in selecting a correct parse. To make maximal use of context, we have automatically constructed, from the Penn Tree Bank version 2, a grammar in which the symbols S and NP are the only real nonterminals, and the other non-terminals or grammatical nodes are in effect embedded into the right-hand-sides of the S and NP rules. For example, one of the rules extracted from the tree bank would be S -> NP VBX JJ CC VBX NP [1] ( where NP is a non-terminal and the other symbols are terminals – part-of-speech tags of the Tree Bank). The most common structure in the Tree Bank associated with this expansion is (S NP (VP (VP VBX (ADJ JJ) CC (VP VBX NP)))) [2]. So if our parser uses rule [1] in parsing a sentence, it will generate structure [2] for the corresponding part of the sentence. Using 94% of the Penn Tree Bank for training, we extracted 32,296 distinct rules ( 23,386 for S, and 8,910 for NP). We also built a smaller version of the grammar based on higher frequency patterns for use as a back-up when the larger grammar is unable to produce a parse due to memory limitation. We applied this parser to 1,989 Wall Street Journal sentences (separate from the training set and with no limit on sentence length). Of the parsed sentences (1,899), the percentage of no-crossing sentences is 33.9%, and Parseval recall and precision are 73.43% and 72 .61%.