File size: 93,870 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 | {
"paper_id": "D07-1002",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T16:18:43.819020Z"
},
"title": "Using Semantic Roles to Improve Question Answering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shen",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Spoken Language Systems Saarland University",
"location": {
"settlement": "Saarbruecken",
"country": "Germany"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Mirella",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lapata",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Edinburgh Edinburgh",
"location": {
"country": "UK"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Shallow semantic parsing, the automatic identification and labeling of sentential constituents, has recently received much attention. Our work examines whether semantic role information is beneficial to question answering. We introduce a general framework for answer extraction which exploits semantic role annotations in the FrameNet paradigm. We view semantic role assignment as an optimization problem in a bipartite graph and answer extraction as an instance of graph matching. Experimental results on the TREC datasets demonstrate improvements over state-of-the-art models.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "D07-1002",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Shallow semantic parsing, the automatic identification and labeling of sentential constituents, has recently received much attention. Our work examines whether semantic role information is beneficial to question answering. We introduce a general framework for answer extraction which exploits semantic role annotations in the FrameNet paradigm. We view semantic role assignment as an optimization problem in a bipartite graph and answer extraction as an instance of graph matching. Experimental results on the TREC datasets demonstrate improvements over state-of-the-art models.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Recent years have witnessed significant progress in developing methods for the automatic identification and labeling of semantic roles conveyed by sentential constituents. 1 The success of these methods, often referred to collectively as shallow semantic parsing (Gildea and Jurafsky, 2002) , is largely due to the availability of resources like FrameNet (Fillmore et al., 2003) and PropBank (Palmer et al., 2005) , which document the surface realization of semantic roles in real world corpora.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 173,
"text": "1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 290,
"text": "(Gildea and Jurafsky, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 378,
"text": "(Fillmore et al., 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 413,
"text": "(Palmer et al., 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "More concretely, in the FrameNet paradigm, the meaning of predicates (usually verbs, nouns, or adjectives) is conveyed by frames, schematic representations of situations. Semantic roles (or frame elements) are defined for each frame and correspond to salient entities present in the evoked situation. Predicates with similar semantics instantiate the same frame and are attested with the same roles. The FrameNet database lists the surface syntactic realizations of semantic roles, and provides annotated example sentences from the British National Corpus. For example, the frame Commerce Sell has three core semantic roles, namely Buyer, Goods, and Seller -each expressed by an indirect object, a direct object, and a subject (see sentences (1a)-(1c)). It can also be attested with non-core (peripheral) roles (e.g., Means, Manner, see (1d) and (1e)) that are more generic and can be instantiated in several frames, besides Commerce Sell. The verbs sell, vend, and retail can evoke this frame, but also the nouns sale and vendor. By abstracting over surface syntactic configurations, semantic roles offer an important first step towards deeper text understanding and hold promise for a range of applications requiring broad coverage semantic processing. Question answering (QA) is often cited as an obvious beneficiary of semantic role labeling (Gildea and Jurafsky, 2002; Palmer et al., 2005; Narayanan and Harabagiu, 2004) . Faced with the question Q: What year did the U.S. buy Alaska? and the retrieved sentence S: . . .before Russia sold Alaska to the United States in 1867, a hypothetical QA system must identify that United States is the Buyer despite the fact that it is attested in one instance as a subject and in another as an object. Once this information is known, isolating the correct answer (i.e., 1867 ) can be relatively straightforward.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 818,
"end": 824,
"text": "Means,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 832,
"text": "Manner,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 833,
"end": 841,
"text": "see (1d)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1346,
"end": 1373,
"text": "(Gildea and Jurafsky, 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 1374,
"end": 1394,
"text": "Palmer et al., 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 1395,
"end": 1425,
"text": "Narayanan and Harabagiu, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Although conventional wisdom has it that semantic role labeling ought to improve answer extraction, surprising little work has been done to this effect (see Section 2 for details) and initial results have been mostly inconclusive or negative Kaisser, 2006) . There are at least two good reasons for these findings. First, shallow semantic parsers trained on declarative sentences will typically have poor performance on questions and generally on out-of-domain data. Second, existing resources do not have exhaustive coverage and recall will be compromised, especially if the question answering system is expected to retrieve answers from unrestricted text. Since FrameNet is still under development, its coverage tends to be more of a problem in comparison to other semantic role resources such as PropBank.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 242,
"end": 256,
"text": "Kaisser, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper we propose an answer extraction model which effectively incorporates FrameNetstyle semantic role information. We present an automatic method for semantic role assignment which is conceptually simple and does not require extensive feature engineering. A key feature of our approach is the comparison of dependency relation paths attested in the FrameNet annotations and raw text. We formalize the search for an optimal role assignment as an optimization problem in a bipartite graph. This formalization allows us to find an exact, globally optimal solution. The graph-theoretic framework goes some way towards addressing coverage problems related with FrameNet and allows us to formulate answer extraction as a graph matching problem. As a byproduct of our main investigation we also examine the issue of FrameNet coverage and show how much it impacts performance in a TREC-style question answering setting.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In the following section we provide an overview of existing work on question answering systems that exploit semantic role-based lexical resources. Then we define our learning task and introduce our approach to semantic role assignment and answer extraction in the context of QA. Next, we present our experimental framework and data. We conclude the paper by presenting and discussing our results.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Question answering systems have traditionally depended on a variety of lexical resources to bridge surface differences between questions and potential answers. WordNet (Fellbaum, 1998) is perhaps the most popular resource and has been employed in a variety of QA-related tasks ranging from query expansion, to axiom-based reasoning (Moldovan et al., 2003) , passage scoring (Paranjpe et al., 2003) , and answer filtering (Leidner et al., 2004) . Besides WordNet, recent QA systems increasingly rely on syntactic information as a means of abstracting over word order differences and structural alternations (e.g., passive vs. active voice). Most syntax-based QA systems (Wu et al., 2005) incorporate some means of comparison between the tree representing the question with the subtree surrounding the answer candidate. The assumption here is that appropriate answers are more likely to have syntactic relations in common with their corresponding question. Syntactic structure matching has been applied to passage retrieval and answer extraction (Shen and Klakow, 2006) . Narayanan and Harabagiu (2004) were the first to stress the importance of semantic roles in answering complex questions. Their system identifies predicate argument structures by merging semantic role information from PropBank and FrameNet. Expected answers are extracted by performing probabilistic inference over the predicate argument structures in conjunction with a domain specific topic model. incorporate semantic analysis in their TREC05 QA system. They use ASSERT (Pradhan et al., 2004) , a publicly available shallow semantic parser trained on PropBank, to generate predicate-argument structures which subsequently form the basis of comparison between question and answer sentences. They find that semantic analysis does not boost performance due to the low recall of the semantic parser. Kaisser (2006) proposes a Figure 1 : Architecture of answer extraction question paraphrasing method based on FrameNet. Questions are assigned semantic roles by matching their dependency relations with those attested in the FrameNet annotations. The assignments are used to create question reformulations which are submitted to Google for answer extraction. The semantic role assignment module is not probabilistic, it relies on strict matching, and runs into severe coverage problems.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 184,
"text": "(Fellbaum, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 355,
"text": "(Moldovan et al., 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 397,
"text": "(Paranjpe et al., 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 443,
"text": "(Leidner et al., 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 669,
"end": 686,
"text": "(Wu et al., 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 1044,
"end": 1067,
"text": "(Shen and Klakow, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 1070,
"end": 1100,
"text": "Narayanan and Harabagiu (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 1542,
"end": 1564,
"text": "(Pradhan et al., 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 1868,
"end": 1882,
"text": "Kaisser (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1894,
"end": 1902,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In line with previous work, our method exploits syntactic information in the form of dependency relation paths together with FrameNet-like semantic roles to smooth lexical and syntactic divergences between question and answer sentences. Our approach is less domain dependent and resource intensive than Narayanan and Harabagiu (2004) , it solely employs a dependency parser and the FrameNet database. In contrast to Kaisser (2006) , we model the semantic role assignment and answer extraction tasks numerically, thereby alleviating the coverage problems encountered previously.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 303,
"end": 333,
"text": "Narayanan and Harabagiu (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 430,
"text": "Kaisser (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We briefly summarize the architecture of the QA system we are working with before formalizing the mechanics of our FrameNet-based answer extraction module. In common with previous work, our overall approach consists of three stages: (a) determining the expected answer type of the question, (b) retrieving passages likely to contain answers to the question, and (c) performing a match between the question words and retrieved passages in order to extract the answer. In this paper we focus on the last stage: question and answer sentences are normalized to a FrameNet-style representation and answers are retrieved by selecting the candidate whose semantic structure is most similar to the question.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Formulation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "The architecture of our answer extraction mod-ule is shown in Figure 1 . Semantic structures for questions and sentences are automatically derived using the model described in Section 4 (Model I). A semantic structure SemStruc = p, Set(SRA) consists of a predicate p and a set of semantic role assignments Set(SRA). p is a word or phrase evoking a frame F of FrameNet. A semantic role assignment SRA is a ternary structure w, SR, s , consisting of frame element w, its semantic role SR, and score s indicating to what degree SR qualifies as a label for w. For a question q, we generate a semantic structure SemStruc q . Question words, such as what, who, when, etc., are considered expected answer phrases (EAPs). We require that EAPs are frame elements of SemStruc q . Likely answer candidates are extracted from answer sentences following some preprocessing steps detailed in Section 6. For each candidate ac, we derive its semantic structure SemStruc ac and assume that ac is a frame element of SemStruc ac . Question and answer semantic structures are compared using a model based on graph matching detailed in Section 5 (Model II). We calculate the similarity of all derived pairs SemStruc q , SemStruc ac and select the candidate with the highest value as an answer for the question.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 70,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Problem Formulation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Our method crucially exploits the annotated sentences in the FrameNet database together with the output of a dependency parser. Our guiding assumption is that sentences that share dependency relations will also share semantic roles as long as they evoke the same or related frames. This is motivated by much research in lexical semantics (e.g., Levin (1993) ) hypothesizing that the behavior of words, particularly with respect to the expression and interpretation of their arguments, is to a large extent determined by their meaning. We first describe how predicates are identified and then introduce our model for semantic role labeling.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 345,
"end": 357,
"text": "Levin (1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Predicate Identification Predicate candidates are identified using a simple look-up procedure which compares POS-tagged tokens against FrameNet entries. For efficiency reasons, we make the simplifying assumption that questions have only one predicate which we select heuristically: (1) verbs are pre-ferred to other parts of speech, (2) if there is more than one verb in the question, preference is given to the verb with the highest level of embedding in the dependency tree, (3) if no verbs are present, a noun is chosen. For example, in Q: Who beat Floyd Patterson to take the title away?, beat, take away, and title are identified as predicate candidates and beat is selected the main predicate of the question. For answer sentences, we require that the predicate is either identical or semantically related to the question predicate (see Section 5).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "In the example given above, the predicate beat evoques a single frame (i.e., Cause harm). However, predicates often have multiple meanings thus evoquing more than one frame. Knowing which is the appropriate frame for a given predicate impacts the semantic role assignment task; selecting the wrong frame will unavoidably result in erroneous semantic roles. Rather than disambiguiting polysemous predicates prior to semantic role assignment, we perform the assignment for each frame evoqued by the predicate.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Semantic Role Assignment Before describing our approach to semantic role labeling we define dependency relation paths. A relation path R is a relation sequence r 1 , r 2 , ..., r L , in which r l (l = 1, 2, ..., L) is one of predefined dependency relations with suffix of traverse direction. An example of a relation path is R = sub j U , ob j D , where the subscripts U and D indicate upward and downward movement in trees, respectively. Given an unannotated sentence whose roles we wish to label, we assume that words or phrases w with a dependency path connecting them to p are frame elements. Each frame element is represented by an unlabeled dependency path R w which we extract by traversing the dependency tree from w to p. Analogously, we extract from the FrameNet annotations all dependency paths R SR that are labeled with semantic role information and correspond to p. We next measure the compatibility of labeled and unlabeled paths as follows:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "s(w, SR) = max R SR \u2208M [sim (R w , R SR ) \u2022 P(R SR )] (2)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "where M is the set of dependency relation paths for SR in FrameNet, sim (R w , R SR ) the similarity between paths R w and R SR weighted by the relative",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "w SR w SR (a)",
"eq_num": "(b)"
}
],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Figure 2: Sample original bipartite graph (a) and its subgraph with edge covers (b). In each graph, the left partition represents frame elements and the right partition semantic roles.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "frequency of R SR in FrameNet (P(R SR )). We consider both core and non-core semantic roles instantiated by frames with at least one annotation in FrameNet. Core roles tend to have more annotations in Framenet and consequently are considered more probable.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We measure sim (R w , R SR ), by adapting a string kernel to our task. Our hypothesis is that the more common substrings two dependency paths have, the more similar they are. The string kernel we used is similar to Leslie (2002) and defined as the sum of weighted common dependency relation subsequences between R w and R SR . For efficiency, we consider only unigram and bigram subsequences. Subsequences are weighted by a metric akin to t f \u2022 id f which measures the degree of association between a candidate SR and the dependency relation r present in the subsequence:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 215,
"end": 228,
"text": "Leslie (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "weight SR (r) = f r \u2022 log 1 + N n r (3)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "where f r is the frequency of r occurring in SR; N is the total number of SRs evoked by a given frame; and n r is the number of SRs containing r.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "For each frame element we thus generate a set of semantic role assignments Set(SRA). This initial assignment can be usefully represented as a complete bipartite graph in which each frame element (word or phrase) is connected to the semantic roles licensed by the predicate and vice versa. (see Figure 2a) . Edges are weighted and represent how compatible the frame elements and semantic roles are (see equation 2). Now, for each frame element w we could simply select the semantic role with the highest score. However, this decision procedure is local, i.e., it yields a semantic role assignment for each frame element independently of all other elements. We therefore may end up with the same role being assigned to two frame elements or with frame elements having no role at all. We remedy this shortcoming by treating the semantic role assignment as a global optimization problem.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 294,
"end": 304,
"text": "Figure 2a)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Specifically, we model the interaction between all pairwise labeling decisions as a minimum weight bipartite edge cover problem (Eiter and Mannila, 1997; Cormen et al., 1990 ). An edge cover is a subgraph of a bipartite graph so that each node is linked to at least one node of the other partition. This yields a semantic role assignment for all frame elements (see Figure 2b where frame elements and roles are adjacent to an edge). Edge covers have been successfully applied in several natural language processing tasks, including machine translation (Taskar et al., 2005) and annotation projection (Pad\u00f3 and Lapata, 2006) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 128,
"end": 153,
"text": "(Eiter and Mannila, 1997;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 173,
"text": "Cormen et al., 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 573,
"text": "(Taskar et al., 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 600,
"end": 623,
"text": "(Pad\u00f3 and Lapata, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 366,
"end": 375,
"text": "Figure 2b",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Formally, optimal edge cover assignments are solutions of following optimization problem:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "max E is edge cover \u220f (nd w ,nd SR )\u2208E s(nd w , nd SR ) (4)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "where, s(nd w , nd SR ) is the compatibility score be-tween the frame element node nd w and semantic role node nd SR . Edge covers can be computed efficiently in cubic time using algorithms for the equivalent linear assignment problem. Our experiments used Jonker and Volgenant's (1987) solver. 2 Figure 3 shows the semantic role assignments generated by our model for the question Q: Who discovered prions? and the candidate answer sentence S: 1997: Stanley B. Prusiner, United States, discovery of prions. . . Here we identify two predicates, namely discover and discovery. The expected answer phrase (EAP) who and the answer candidate Stanley B. Prusiner are assigned the COGNIZER role. Note that frame elements can bear multiple semantic roles. By inducing a soft labeling we hope to render the matching of questions and answers more robust, thereby addressing to some extent the coverage problems associated with FrameNet.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 257,
"end": 286,
"text": "Jonker and Volgenant's (1987)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 297,
"end": 305,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Generation",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We measure the similarity between a question and its candidate answer by matching their predicates and semantic role assignments. Since SRs are framespecific, we prioritize frame matching to SR matching. Two predicates match if they evoke the same frame or one of its hypernyms (or hyponyms). The latter are expressed by the Inherits From and Is Inherited By relations in the frame definitions. If the predicates match, we examine whether the assigned semantic roles match. Since we represent SR assignments as graphs with edge covers, we can also formalize SR matching as a graph matching problem.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Matching",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "The similarity between two graphs is measured as the sum of similarities between their subgraphs. We first decompose a graph into subgraphs consisting of one frame element node w and a set of SR nodes connected to it. The similarity between two subgraphs SubG 1 , and SubG 2 is then formalized as:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Matching",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "(5) Sim(SubG 1 , SubG 2 ) = \u2211 nd SR 1 \u2208 SubG 1 nd SR 2 \u2208 SubG 2 nd SR 1 = nd SR 2 1 |s(nd w , nd SR 1 ) \u2212 s(nd w , nd SR 2 )| + 1",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Matching",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "where, nd SR 1 and nd SR 2 are semantic role nodes connected to a frame element node nd w in SubG 1 and SubG 2 , respectively. s(nd w , nd sr 1 ) and s(nd w , nd SR 2 ) are edge weights between two nodes in corresponding subgraphs (see (2)). Our intuition here is that the more semantic roles two subgraphs share for a given frame element, the more similar they are and the closer their corresponding edge weights should be. Edge weights are normalized by dividing by the sum of all edges in a subgraph.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Structure Matching",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Data All our experiments were performed on the TREC02-05 factoid questions. We excluded NIL questions since TREC doesn't supply an answer for them. We used the FrameNet V1.3 lexical database. It contains 10,195 predicates grouped into 795 semantic frames and 141,238 annotated sentences. Figure 4 shows the number of annotated sentences available for different predicates. As can be seen, there are 3,380 predicates with no annotated sentences and 1,175 predicates with less than 5 annotated sentences. All FrameNet sentences, questions, and answer sentences were parsed using MiniPar (Lin, 1994) , a robust dependency parser.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 585,
"end": 596,
"text": "(Lin, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 288,
"end": 296,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "As mentioned in Section 4 we extract dependency relation paths by traversing the dependency tree from the frame element node to the predicate node. We used all dependency relations provided by MiniPar (42 in total). In order to increase coverage, we combine all relation paths for predicates that evoke the same frame and are labeled with the same POS tag. For example, found and establish are both instances of the frame Intentionally create but the database does not have any annotated sentences for found.v. In default of not assigning any role labels for found.v, our model employs the relation paths for the semantically related establish.v.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Preprocessing Here we summarize the steps of our QA system preceding the assignment of semantic structure and answer extraction. For each question, we recognize its expected answer type (e.g., in Q: Which record company is Fred Durst with? we would expect the answer to be an ORGANIZA-TION ). Answer types are determined using classification rules similar to Li and Roth (2002) . We also reformulate questions into declarative sentences following the strategy proposed in Brill et al. (2002) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 359,
"end": 377,
"text": "Li and Roth (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 472,
"end": 491,
"text": "Brill et al. (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "The reformulated sentences are submitted as queries to an IR engine for retrieving sentences with relevant answers. Specifically, we use the Lemur Toolkit 3 , a state-of-the-art language model-driven search engine. We work only with the 50 top-ranked sentences as this setting performed best in previous experiments of our QA system. We also add to Lemur's output gold standard sentences, which contain and support an answer for each question. Specifically, documents relevant for each question are retrieved from the AQUAINT Corpus 4 according to TREC supplied judgments. Next, sentences which match both the TREC provided answer pattern and at least one question key word are extracted and their suitability is manually judged by humans. The set of relevant sentences thus includes at least one sentence with an appropriate answer as well as sentences that do not contain any answer specific information. This setup is somewhat idealized, however it allows us to evaluate in more detail our answer extraction module (since when an answer is not found, we know it is the fault of our system).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Relevant sentences are annotated with their named entities using Lingpipe 5 , a MUC-based named entity recognizer. When we successfully classify a question with an expected answer type (e.g., ORGANIZATION in the example above), we assume that all NPs attested in the set of relevant sentences with the same answer type are candidate answers; in cases where no answer type is found (e.g., as in Q: What are prions made of? ), all NPs in the relevant answers set are considered candidate answers.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "We compared our answer extraction method to a QA system that exploits solely syntactic information without making use of FrameNet or any other type of role semantic annotations. For each question, the baseline identifies key phrases deemed important for answer identification. These are verbs, noun phrases, and expected answer phrases (EAPs, see Section 3). All dependency relation paths connecting a key phrase and an EAP are compared to those connecting the same key phrases and an answer candidate. The similarity of question and answer paths is computed using a simplified version of the similarity measure 6 proposed in Shen and Klakow (2006) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 626,
"end": 648,
"text": "Shen and Klakow (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Baseline",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our second baseline employs Shalmaneser (Erk and Pad\u00f3, 2006) , a publicly available shallow semantic parser 7 , for the role labeling task instead of the graph-based model presented in Section 4. The software is trained on the FrameNet annotated sentences using a standard feature set (see Carreras and M\u00e0rquez (2005) for details). We use Shalmaneser to parse questions and answer sentences. The parser makes hard decisions about the presence or absence of a semantic role. Unfortunately, this prevents us from using our method for semantic structure matching (see Section 5) which assumes a soft labeling. We therefore came up with a simple matching strategy suitable for the parser's output. For question and answer sentences matching in their frame assignment, phrases bearing the same semantic role as the EAP are considered answer candidates. The latter are ranked according to word overlap (i.e., identical phrases are ranked higher than phrases with no 6 Shen and Klakow (2006) use a dynamic time warping algorithm to calculate the degree to which dependency relation paths are correlated. Correlations for individual relations are estimated from training data whereas we assume a binary value (1 for identical relations and 0 otherwise). The modification was necessary to render the baseline system comparable to our answer extraction model which is unsupervised.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 60,
"text": "(Erk and Pad\u00f3, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 317,
"text": "Carreras and M\u00e0rquez (2005)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 960,
"end": 961,
"text": "6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Baseline",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "7 The software is available from http://www.coli. uni-saarland.de/projects/salsa/shal/ . overlap at all).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Baseline",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our evaluation was motivated by the following questions: (1) How does the incompleteness of FrameNet impact QA performance on the TREC data sets? In particular, we wanted to examine whether there are questions for which in principle no answer can be found due to missing frame entries or missing annotated sentences.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "(2) Are all questions and their corresponding answers amenable to a FrameNetstyle analysis? In other words, we wanted to assess whether questions and answers often evoke the same or related frames (with similar roles). This is a prerequisite for semantic structure matching and ultimately answer extraction. (3) Do the graph-based models introduced in this paper bring any performance gains over state-of-the-art shallow semantic parsers or more conventional syntax-based QA systems? Recall that our graph-based models were designed especially for the QA answer extraction task.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Our results are summarized in Tables 1-3. Table 1 records the number of questions to be answered for the TREC02-05 datasets (Total). We also give information regarding the number of questions which are in principle unanswerable with a FrameNet-style semantic role analysis.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 49,
"text": "Tables 1-3. Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Column NoFrame shows the number of questions which don't have an appropriate frame or predicate in the database. For example, there is currently no predicate entry for sponsor or sink (e.g., Q: Who is the sponsor of the International Criminal Court? and Q: What date did the Lusitania sink? ). Column NoAnnot refers to questions for which no semantic role labeling is possible because annotated sentences for the relevant predicates are missing. For instance, there are no annotations for win (e.g., Q: What division did Floyd Patterson win? ) or for hit (e.g., Q: What was the Beatles' first number one hit? ). This problem is not specific to our method which admittedly relies on FrameNet annotations for performing the semantic role assignment (see Section 4). Shallow semantic parsers trained on FrameNet would also have trouble assigning roles to predicates for which no data is available.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Finally, column NoMatch reports the number of questions which cannot be answered due to frame These results indicate that FrameNet-based semantic role analysis applies to approximately 35% of the TREC data. This means that an extraction module relying solely on FrameNet will have poor performance, since it will be unable to find answers for more than half of the questions beeing asked. We nevertheless examine whether our model brings any performance improvements on this limited dataset which is admittedly favorable towards a FrameNet style analysis. Table 2 shows the results of our answer extraction module (SemMatch) together with two baseline systems. The first baseline uses only dependency relation path information (SynMatch), whereas the second baseline (SemParse) uses Shalmaneser, a state-of-the-art shallow semantic parser for the role labeling task. We consider an answer correct if it is returned with rank 1. As can be seen, SemMatch is significantly better than both Syn-Match and SemParse, whereas the latter is significantly worse than SynMatch.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 556,
"end": 563,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Although promising, the results in Table 2 are not very informative, since they show performance gains on partial data. Instead of using our answer extraction model on its own, we next combined it with the syntax-based system mentioned above (SynMatch, see also Section 6 for details). If FrameNet is indeed helpful for QA, we would expect an ensemble sys- Table 1) ; * : significantly better than +SemParse; \u2020 : significantly better than SynMatch (p < 0.01, using a \u03c7 2 test). tem to yield better performance over a purely syntactic answer extraction module. The two systems were combined as follows. Given a question, we first pass it to our FrameNet model; if an answer is found, our job is done; if no answer is returned, the question is passed on to SynMatch. Our results are given in Table 3 . +SemMatch and +SemParse are ensemble systems using SynMatch together with the QA specific role labeling method proposed in this paper and Shalmaneser, respectively. We also compare these systems against SynMatch on its own.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 42,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 365,
"text": "Table 1)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 790,
"end": 797,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "We can now attempt to answer our third question concerning our model's performance on the TREC data. Our experiments show that a FrameNetenhanced answer extraction module significantly outperforms a similar module that uses only syntactic information (compare SynMatch and +Sem-Match in Table 3 ). Another interesting finding is that the shallow semantic parser performs considerably worse in comparison to our graph-based models and the syntax-based system. Inspection of the parser's output highlights two explanations for this. First, the shallow semantic parser has difficulty assigning accurate semantic roles to questions (even when they are reformulated as declarative sentences). And secondly, it tends to favor precision over recall, thus reducing the number of questions for which answers can be found. A similar finding is reported in for a PropBank trained parser.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 287,
"end": 294,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "In this paper we assess the contribution of semantic role labeling to open-domain factoid question answering. We present a graph-based answer extraction model which effectively incorporates FrameNet style role semantic information and show that it achieves promising results. Our experiments show that the proposed model can be effectively combined with a syntax-based system to obtain performance superior to the latter when used on its own. Furthermore, we demonstrate performance gains over a shallow semantic parser trained on the FrameNet annotated corpus. We argue that performance gains are due to the adopted graph-theoretic framework which is robust to coverage and recall problems.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "We also provide a detailed analysis of the appropriateness of FrameNet for QA. We show that performance can be compromised due to incomplete coverage (i.e., missing frame or predicate entries as well as annotated sentences) but also because of mismatching question-answer representations. The question and the answer may evoke different frames or the answer simply falls outside the scope of a given frame (i.e., in a non predicate-argument structure). Our study shows that mismatches are relatively frequent and motivates the use of semantically informed methods in conjunction with syntax-based methods.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "Important future directions lie in evaluating the contribution of alternative semantic role frameworks (e.g., PropBank) to the answer extraction task and developing models that learn semantic roles directly from unannotated text without the support of FrameNet annotations (Grenager and Manning, 2006) . Beyond question answering, we also plan to investigate the potential of our model for shallow semantic parsing since our experience so far has shown that it achieves good recall.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 273,
"end": 301,
"text": "(Grenager and Manning, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "The approaches are too numerous to list; we refer the interested reader toCarreras and M\u00e0rquez (2005) for an overview.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The software is available from http://www.magiclogic. com/assignment.html .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "See http://www.lemurproject.org/ for details.4 This corpus consists of English newswire texts and is used as the main document collection in official TREC evaluations.5 The software is available from www.alias-i.com/ lingpipe/",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "We are grateful to Sebastian Pad\u00f3 for running Shalmaneser on our data. Thanks to Frank Keller and Amit Dubey for insightful comments and suggestions. The authors acknowledge the support of DFG (Shen; PhD studentship within the International Postgraduate College \"Language Technology and Cognitive Systems\") and EPSRC (Lapata; grant EP/C538447/1).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgements",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "An analysis of the askMSR question-answering system",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brill",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dumais",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Banko",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "257--264",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "E. Brill, S. Dumais, M. Banko. 2002. An analysis of the askMSR question-answering system. In Proceedings of the EMNLP, 257-264, Philadelphia, PA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Proceedings of the CoNLL shared task: Semantic role labelling",
"authors": [],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "X. Carreras, L. M\u00e0rquez, eds. 2005. Proceedings of the CoNLL shared task: Semantic role labelling, 2005.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Introduction to Algorithms",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cormen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Leiserson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rivest",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Cormen, C. Leiserson, R. Rivest. 1990. Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Question answering passage retrieval using dependency relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cui",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"X"
],
"last": "Sun",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Kan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Chua",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "400--407",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. Cui, R. X. Sun, K. Y. Li, M. Y. Kan, T. S. Chua. 2005. Question answering passage retrieval using de- pendency relations. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR, 400-407. ACM Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Distance measures for point sets and their computation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eiter",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mannila",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Acta Informatica",
"volume": "34",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "109--133",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Eiter, H. Mannila. 1997. Distance measures for point sets and their computation. Acta Informatica, 34(2):109-133.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Shalmaneser -a flexible toolbox for semantic role assignment",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Erk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pad\u00f3",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the LREC",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "527--532",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Erk, S. Pad\u00f3. 2006. Shalmaneser -a flexible toolbox for semantic role assignment. In Proceedings of the LREC, 527-532, Genoa, Italy.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "WordNet. An Electronic Lexical Database",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fellbaum",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Fellbaum, ed. 1998. WordNet. An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge/Mass.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Background to FrameNet",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Fillmore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Petruck",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "International Journal of Lexicography",
"volume": "16",
"issue": "",
"pages": "235--250",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. J. Fillmore, C. R. Johnson, M. R. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16:235-250.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Automatic labeling of semantic roles",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gildea",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "28",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "245--288",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Gildea, D. Jurafsky. 2002. Automatic labeling of se- mantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 28(3):245- 288.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Unsupervised discovery of a statistical verb lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grenager",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--8",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Grenager, C. D. Manning. 2006. Unsupervised dis- covery of a statistical verb lexicon. In Proceedings of the EMNLP, 1-8, Sydney, Australia.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "A shortest augmenting path algorithm for dense and sparse linear assignment problems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jonker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Volgenant",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "Computing",
"volume": "38",
"issue": "",
"pages": "325--340",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Jonker, A. Volgenant. 1987. A shortest augmenting path algorithm for dense and sparse linear assignment problems. Computing, 38:325-340.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Web question answering by exploiting wide-coverage lexical resources",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kaisser",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 11th ESSLLI Student Session",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "203--213",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Kaisser. 2006. Web question answering by exploiting wide-coverage lexical resources. In Proceedings of the 11th ESSLLI Student Session, 203-213.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "The qed opendomain answer retrieval system for TREC",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Leidner",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bos",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dalmas",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Curran",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clark",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bannard",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of the TREC",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "595--599",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Leidner, J. Bos, T. Dalmas, J. Curran, S. Clark, C. Ban- nard, B. Webber, M. Steedman. 2004. The qed open- domain answer retrieval system for TREC 2003. In Proceedings of the TREC, 595-599.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "The spectrum kernel: a string kernel for SVM protein classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Leslie",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eskin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Noble",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Pacific Biocomputing Symposium",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "564--575",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Leslie, E. Eskin, W. S. Noble. 2002. The spectrum kernel: a string kernel for SVM protein classification. In Proceedings of the Pacific Biocomputing Sympo- sium, 564-575.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Levin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B. Levin. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Learning question classifiers",
"authors": [
{
"first": "X",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roth",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 19th COLING",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "556--562",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "X. Li, D. Roth. 2002. Learning question classifiers. In Proceedings of the 19th COLING, 556-562, Taipei, Taiwan.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "PRINCIPAR-an efficient, broadcoverage, principle-based parser",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 15th COLING",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "482--488",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Lin. 1994. PRINCIPAR-an efficient, broad- coverage, principle-based parser. In Proceedings of the 15th COLING, 482-488.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "COGEX: A logic prover for question answering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moldovan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clark",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Harabagiu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Maiorano",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of the HLT/NAACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "87--93",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Moldovan, C. Clark, S. Harabagiu, S. Maiorano. 2003. COGEX: A logic prover for question answer- ing. In Proceedings of the HLT/NAACL, 87-93, Ed- monton, Canada.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Question answering based on semantic structures",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Narayanan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Harabagiu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 19th COLING",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "184--191",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Narayanan, S. Harabagiu. 2004. Question answering based on semantic structures. In Proceedings of the 19th COLING, 184-191.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Optimal constituent alignment with edge covers for semantic projection",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pad\u00f3",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lapata",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the COLING/ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1161--1168",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Pad\u00f3, M. Lapata. 2006. Optimal constituent alignment with edge covers for semantic projection. In Proceed- ings of the COLING/ACL, 1161-1168.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "The Proposition Bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gildea",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kingsbury",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "31",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "71--106",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Palmer, D. Gildea, P. Kingsbury. 2005. The Propo- sition Bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1):71-106.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Passage scoring for question answering via bayesian inference on lexical relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Paranjpe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ramakrishnan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Srinivasa",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of the TREC",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "305--210",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Paranjpe, G. Ramakrishnan, S. Srinivasa. 2003. Pas- sage scoring for question answering via bayesian infer- ence on lexical relations. In Proceedings of the TREC, 305-210.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Shallow semantic parsing using support vector machines",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pradhan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ward",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hacioglu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Martin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of the HLT/NAACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "141--144",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Pradhan, W. Ward, K. Hacioglu, J. Martin, D. Jurafsky. 2004. Shallow semantic parsing using support vector machines. In Proceedings of the HLT/NAACL, 141- 144, Boston, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Exploring correlation of dependency relation paths for answer extraction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klakow",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the COLING/ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "889--896",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Shen, D. Klakow. 2006. Exploring correlation of de- pendency relation paths for answer extraction. In Pro- ceedings of the COLING/ACL, 889-896.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Using syntactic and semantic relation analysis in question answering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"X"
],
"last": "Sun",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Jiang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [
"F"
],
"last": "Tan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cui",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Chua",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Kan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the TREC",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. X. Sun, J. J. Jiang, Y. F. Tan, H. Cui, T. S. Chua, M. Y. Kan. 2005. Using syntactic and semantic re- lation analysis in question answering. In Proceedings of the TREC.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "A discriminative matching approach to word alignment",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Taskar",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lacoste-Julien",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the HLT/EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "73--80",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B. Taskar, S. Lacoste-Julien, D. Klein. 2005. A discrim- inative matching approach to word alignment. In Pro- ceedings of the HLT/EMNLP, 73-80, Vancouver, BC.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "University at albany's ilqua in trec",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Duan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shaikh",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Small",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Strzalkowski",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the TREC",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "77--83",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Wu, M. Y. Duan, S. Shaikh, S. Small, T. Strzalkowski. 2005. University at albany's ilqua in trec 2005. In Proceedings of the TREC, 77-83.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Who discovered prions? S: 1997: Stanley B. Prusiner, United States, discovery of prions, ... Semantic structures induced by our model for a question and answer sentence",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Distribution of Numbers of Predicates and annotated sentences; each sub-pie, lists the number of predicates (above) with their corresponding range of annotated sentences (below)",
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"TABREF0": {
"content": "<table><tr><td>(1)</td><td>a. [Lee]</td></tr></table>",
"html": null,
"text": "Seller sold a textbook [to Abby] Buyer . b. [Kim] Seller sold [the sweater] Goods . c. [My company] Seller has sold [more than three million copies] Goods . d. [Abby] Seller sold [the car] Goods [for cash] Means . e. [He] Seller [reluctanctly] Manner sold [his rock] Goods .",
"type_str": "table",
"num": null
},
"TABREF3": {
"content": "<table><tr><td>Model</td><td colspan=\"4\">TREC02 TREC03 TREC04 TREC05</td></tr><tr><td>SemParse</td><td>13.16</td><td>8.92</td><td>17.33</td><td>13.16</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">SynMatch 35.53</td><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>",
"html": null,
"text": "33.04 * 40.00 * 36.84 * SemMatch 53.29 * \u2020 49.11 * \u2020 54.67 * \u2020 59.65 * \u2020",
"type_str": "table",
"num": null
},
"TABREF4": {
"content": "<table><tr><td>: signifi-</td></tr></table>",
"html": null,
"text": "System Performance on subset of TREC datasets (see Rest column in Table 1); \u2020 35.53 * \u2020 42.36 * \u2020 41.76 * \u2020",
"type_str": "table",
"num": null
},
"TABREF5": {
"content": "<table/>",
"html": null,
"text": "System Performance on TREC datasets (see Total column in",
"type_str": "table",
"num": null
}
}
}
} |