File size: 109,344 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 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 | {
"paper_id": "D08-1007",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T16:31:10.113642Z"
},
"title": "Discriminative Learning of Selectional Preference from Unlabeled Text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Shane",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bergsma",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Alberta",
"location": {
"postCode": "T6G 2E8",
"settlement": "Edmonton",
"region": "Alberta Canada"
}
},
"email": "bergsma@cs.ualberta.ca"
},
{
"first": "Dekang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Google, Inc",
"location": {
"addrLine": "1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View California",
"postCode": "94301"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Randy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goebel",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Alberta",
"location": {
"postCode": "T6G 2E8",
"settlement": "Edmonton",
"region": "Alberta Canada"
}
},
"email": "goebel@cs.ualberta.ca"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We present a discriminative method for learning selectional preferences from unlabeled text. Positive examples are taken from observed predicate-argument pairs, while negatives are constructed from unobserved combinations. We train a Support Vector Machine classifier to distinguish the positive from the negative instances. We show how to partition the examples for efficient training with 57 thousand features and 6.5 million training instances. The model outperforms other recent approaches, achieving excellent correlation with human plausibility judgments. Compared to Mutual Information, it identifies 66% more verb-object pairs in unseen text, and resolves 37% more pronouns correctly in a pronoun resolution experiment.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "D08-1007",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We present a discriminative method for learning selectional preferences from unlabeled text. Positive examples are taken from observed predicate-argument pairs, while negatives are constructed from unobserved combinations. We train a Support Vector Machine classifier to distinguish the positive from the negative instances. We show how to partition the examples for efficient training with 57 thousand features and 6.5 million training instances. The model outperforms other recent approaches, achieving excellent correlation with human plausibility judgments. Compared to Mutual Information, it identifies 66% more verb-object pairs in unseen text, and resolves 37% more pronouns correctly in a pronoun resolution experiment.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Selectional preferences (SPs) tell us which arguments are plausible for a particular predicate. For example, Table 2 (Section 4.4) lists plausible and implausible direct objects (arguments) for particular verbs (predicates). SPs can help resolve syntactic, word sense, and reference ambiguity (Clark and Weir, 2002) , and so gathering them has received a lot of attention in the NLP community.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 293,
"end": 315,
"text": "(Clark and Weir, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 116,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "One way to determine SPs is from co-occurrences of predicates and arguments in text. Unfortunately, no matter how much text we use, many acceptable pairs will be missing. Bikel (2004) found that only 1.49% of the bilexical dependencies considered by Collins' parser during decoding were observed during training. In our parsed corpus (Section 4.1), for example, we find eat with nachos, burritos, and tacos, but not with the equally tasty quesadillas, chimichangas, or tostadas. Rather than solely relying on co-occurrence counts, we would like to use them to generalize to unseen pairs.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 171,
"end": 183,
"text": "Bikel (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In particular, we would like to exploit a number of arbitrary and potentially overlapping properties of predicates and arguments when we assign SPs. We do this by representing these properties as features in a linear classifier, and training the weights using discriminative learning. Positive examples are taken from observed predicate-argument pairs, while pseudo-negatives are constructed from unobserved combinations. We train a Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier to distinguish the positives from the negatives. We refer to our model's scores as Discriminative Selectional Preference (DSP). By creating training vectors automatically, DSP enjoys all the advantages of supervised learning, but without the need for manual annotation of examples.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We evaluate DSP on the task of assigning verbobject selectional preference. We encode a noun's textual distribution as feature information. The learned feature weights are linguistically interesting, yielding high-quality similar-word lists as latent information. Despite its representational power, DSP scales to real-world data sizes: examples are partitioned by predicate, and a separate SVM is trained for each partition. This allows us to efficiently learn with over 57 thousand features and 6.5 million examples. DSP outperforms recently proposed alternatives in a range of experiments, and better correlates with human plausibility judgments. It also shows strong gains over a Mutual Information-based co-occurrence model on two tasks: identifying objects of verbs in an unseen corpus and finding pronominal antecedents in coreference data.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Most approaches to SPs generalize from observed predicate-argument pairs to semantically similar ones by modeling the semantic class of the argument, following Resnik (1996) . For example, we might have a class Mexican Food and learn that the entire class is suitable for eating. Usually, the classes are from WordNet (Miller et al., 1990) , although they can also be inferred from clustering (Rooth et al., 1999) . Brockmann and Lapata (2003) compare a number of WordNet-based approaches, including Resnik (1996) , Li and Abe (1998) , and Clark and Weir (2002) , and found that the more sophisticated class-based approaches do not always outperform simple frequency-based models.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 173,
"text": "Resnik (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 339,
"text": "(Miller et al., 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 413,
"text": "(Rooth et al., 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 443,
"text": "Brockmann and Lapata (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 500,
"end": 513,
"text": "Resnik (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 516,
"end": 533,
"text": "Li and Abe (1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 540,
"end": 561,
"text": "Clark and Weir (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Another line of research generalizes using similar words. Suppose we are calculating the probability of a particular noun, n, occurring as the object argument of a given verbal predicate, v. Let Pr(n|v) be the empirical maximum-likelihood estimate from observed text. Dagan et al. (1999) define the similarity-weighted probability, Pr SIM , to be:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 268,
"end": 287,
"text": "Dagan et al. (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Pr SIM (n|v) = v \u2032 \u2208SIMS(v) Sim(v \u2032 , v)Pr(n|v \u2032 ) (1)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "where Sim(v \u2032 , v) returns a real-valued similarity between two verbs v \u2032 and v (normalized over all pair similarities in the sum). In contrast, Erk (2007) generalizes by substituting similar arguments, while Wang et al. (2005) use the cross-product of similar pairs. One key issue is how to define the set of similar words, SIMS(w). Erk (2007) compared a number of techniques for creating similar-word sets and found that both the Jaccard coefficient and Lin (1998a)'s information-theoretic metric work best. Similarity-smoothed models are simple to compute, potentially adaptable to new domains, and require no manually-compiled resources such as WordNet.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 155,
"text": "Erk (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 227,
"text": "Wang et al. (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 344,
"text": "Erk (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Selectional Preferences have also been a recent focus of researchers investigating the learning of paraphrases and inference rules (Pantel et al., 2007; Roberto et al., 2007) . Inferences such as \"[X wins Y] \u21d2 [X plays Y]\" are only valid for certain argu-ments X and Y. We follow Pantel et al. (2007) in using automatically-extracted semantic classes to help characterize plausible arguments.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 152,
"text": "(Pantel et al., 2007;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 174,
"text": "Roberto et al., 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 300,
"text": "Pantel et al. (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Discriminative techniques are widely used in NLP and have been applied to the related tasks of word prediction and language modeling. Even-Zohar and Roth (2000) use a classifier to predict the most likely word to fill a position in a sentence (in their experiments: a verb) from a set of candidates (sets of verbs), by inspecting the context of the target token (e.g., the presence or absence of a particular nearby word in the sentence). This approach can therefore learn which specific arguments occur with a particular predicate. In comparison, our features are second-order: we learn what kinds of arguments occur with a predicate by encoding features of the arguments. Recent distributed and latentvariable models also represent words with feature vectors (Bengio et al., 2003; Blitzer et al., 2005) . Many of these approaches learn both the feature weights and the feature representation. Vectors must be kept low-dimensional for tractability, while learning and inference on larger scales is impractical. By partitioning our examples by predicate, we can efficiently use high-dimensional, sparse vectors.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 761,
"end": 782,
"text": "(Bengio et al., 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 783,
"end": 804,
"text": "Blitzer et al., 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Our technique of generating negative examples is similar to the approach of Okanohara and Tsujii (2007) . They learn a classifier to disambiguate actual sentences from pseudo-negative examples sampled from an N-gram language model. Smith and Eisner (2005) also automatically generate negative examples. They perturb their input sequence (e.g. the sentence word order) to create a neighborhood of implicit negative evidence. We create negatives by substitution rather than perturbation, and use corpuswide statistics to choose our negative instances.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 103,
"text": "Okanohara and Tsujii (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "To learn a discriminative model of selectional preference, we create positive and negative training examples automatically from raw text. To create the positives, we automatically parse a large corpus, and then extract the predicate-argument pairs that have a statistical association in this data. We measure this association using pointwise Mutual Information (MI) (Church and Hanks, 1990) . The MI between a verb predicate, v, and its object argument, n, is:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 366,
"end": 390,
"text": "(Church and Hanks, 1990)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Creating Examples",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "MI(v, n) = log Pr(v, n) Pr(v)Pr(n) = log Pr(n|v) Pr(n)",
"eq_num": "(2)"
}
],
"section": "Creating Examples",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "If MI>0, the probability v and n occur together is greater than if they were independently distributed. We create sets of positive and negative examples separately for each predicate, v. First, we extract all pairs where MI(v, n)>\u03c4 as positives. For each positive, we create pseudo-negative examples, (v, n \u2032 ), by pairing v with a new argument, n \u2032 , that either has MI below the threshold or did not occur with v in the corpus. We require each negative n \u2032 to have a similar frequency to its corresponding n. This prevents our learning algorithm from focusing on any accidental frequency-based bias. We mix in K negatives for each positive, sampling without replacement to create all the negatives for a particular predicate. For each v, 1 K+1 of its examples will be positive. The threshold \u03c4 represents a trade-off between capturing a large number of positive pairs and ensuring these pairs have good association. Similarly, K is a tradeoff between the number of examples and the computational efficiency. Ultimately, these parameters should be optimized for task performance.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Creating Examples",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Of course, some negatives will actually be plausible arguments that were unobserved due to sparseness. Fortunately, modern discriminative methods like soft-margin SVMs can learn in the face of label error by allowing slack, subject to a tunable regularization penalty (Cortes and Vapnik, 1995) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 268,
"end": 293,
"text": "(Cortes and Vapnik, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Creating Examples",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "If MI is a sparse and imperfect model of SP, what can DSP gain by training on MI's scores? We can regard DSP as learning a view of SP that is orthogonal to MI, in a co-training sense (Blum and Mitchell, 1998) . MI labels the data based solely on co-occurrence; DSP uses these labels to identify other regularities -ones that extend beyond cooccurring words. For example, many instances of n where MI(eat, n)>\u03c4 also have MI(buy, n)>\u03c4 and MI(cook, n)>\u03c4 . Also, compared to other nouns, a disproportionate number of eat-nouns are lowercase, single-token words, and they rarely contain digits, hyphens, or begin with a human first name like Bob. DSP encodes these interdependent properties as features in a linear classifier. This classifier can score any noun as a plausible argument of eat if indicative features are present; MI can only assign high plausibility to observed (eat,n) pairs. Similarity-smoothed models can make use of the regularities across similar verbs, but not the finergrained string-and token-based features.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 183,
"end": 208,
"text": "(Blum and Mitchell, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Creating Examples",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Our training examples are similar to the data created for pseudodisambiguation, the usual evaluation task for SP models (Erk, 2007; Keller and Lapata, 2003; Rooth et al., 1999) . This data consists of triples (v, n, n \u2032 ) where v, n is a predicateargument pair observed in the corpus and v, n \u2032 has not been observed. The models score correctly if they rank observed (and thus plausible) arguments above corresponding unobserved (and thus likely implausible) ones. We refer to this as Pairwise Disambiguation. Unlike this task, we classify each predicate-argument pair independently as plausible/implausible. We also use MI rather than frequency to define the positive pairs, ensuring that the positive pairs truly have a statistical association, and are not simply the result of parser error or noise. 1",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 131,
"text": "(Erk, 2007;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 156,
"text": "Keller and Lapata, 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 176,
"text": "Rooth et al., 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Creating Examples",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "After creating our positive and negative training pairs, we must select a feature representation for our examples. Let \u03a6 be a mapping from a predicateargument pair (v, n) to a feature vector, \u03a6 :",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Partitioning for Efficient Training",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "(v, n) \u2192 \u03c6 1 ...\u03c6 k .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Partitioning for Efficient Training",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Predictions are made based on a weighted combination of the features, y = \u03bb \u2022 \u03a6(v, n), where \u03bb is our learned weight vector.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Partitioning for Efficient Training",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "We can make training significantly more efficient by using a special form of attribute-value features. Let every feature \u03c6 i be of the form",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Partitioning for Efficient Training",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u03c6 i (v, n) = v = v \u2227 f (n)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Partitioning for Efficient Training",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": ". That is, every feature is an intersection of the occurrence of a particular predicate,v, and some feature of the argument f (n). For example, a feature for a verb-object pair might be, \"the verb is eat and the object is lower-case.\" In this representation, features for one predicate will be completely independent from those for every other predicate. Thus rather than a single training procedure, we can actually partition the examples by predicate, and train a classifier for each predicate independently. The prediction becomes",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Partitioning for Efficient Training",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "y v = \u03bb v \u2022 \u03a6 v (n)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Partitioning for Efficient Training",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": ", where \u03bb v are the learned weights corresponding to predicate v and all features \u03a6 v (n)=f (n) depend on the argument only.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Partitioning for Efficient Training",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Some predicate partitions may have insufficient examples for training. Also, a predicate may occur in test data that was unseen during training. To handle these instances, we decided to cluster lowfrequency predicates. In our experiments assigning SP to verb-object pairs, we cluster all verbs that have less than 250 positive examples, using clusters generated by the CBC algorithm (Pantel and Lin, 2002) . For example, the low-frequency verbs incarcerate, parole, and court-martial are all mapped to the same partition, while more-frequent verbs like arrest and execute each have their own partition. About 5.5% of examples are clustered, corresponding to 30% of the 7367 total verbs. 40% of verbs (but only 0.6% of examples) were not in any CBC cluster; these were mapped to a single backoff partition.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 383,
"end": 405,
"text": "(Pantel and Lin, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Partitioning for Efficient Training",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The parameters for each partition, \u03bb v , can be trained with any supervised learning technique. We use SVM (Section 4.1) because it is effective in similar high-dimensional, sparse-vector settings, and has an efficient implementation (Joachims, 1999) . In SVM, the sign of y v gives the classification. We can also use the scalar y v as our DSP score (i.e. the positive distance from the separating SVM hyperplane).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 234,
"end": 250,
"text": "(Joachims, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Partitioning for Efficient Training",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "This section details our argument features, f (n), for assigning verb-object selectional preference. For a verb predicate (or partition) v and object argument n, the form of our classifier is",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "y v = i \u03bb v i f i (n).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "We provide features for the empirical probability of the noun occurring as the object argument of other verbs, Pr(n|v \u2032 ). If we were to only use these features (indexing the feature weights by each verb v \u2032 ), the form of our classifier would be:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Verb co-occurrence",
"sec_num": "3.3.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "y v = v \u2032 \u03bb v v \u2032 Pr(n|v \u2032 )",
"eq_num": "(3)"
}
],
"section": "Verb co-occurrence",
"sec_num": "3.3.1"
},
{
"text": "Note the similarity between Equation (3) and Equation (1). Now the feature weights, \u03bb v v \u2032 , take the role of the similarity function, Sim(v \u2032 , v). Unlike Equation (1), however, these weights are not set by an external similarity algorithm, but are optimized to discriminate the positive and negative training examples. We need not restrict ourselves to a short list of similar verbs; we include Pr obj (n|v \u2032 ) features for every verb that occurs more than 10 times in our corpus. \u03bb v v \u2032 may be positive or negative, depending on the relation between v \u2032 and v. We also include features for the probability of the noun occurring as the subject of other verbs, Pr subj (n|v \u2032 ). For example, nouns that can be the object of eat will also occur as the subject of taste and contain. Other contexts, such as adjectival and nominal predicates, could also aid the prediction, but have not yet been investigated.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Verb co-occurrence",
"sec_num": "3.3.1"
},
{
"text": "The advantage of tuning similarity to the application of interest has been shown previously by Weeds and Weir (2005) . They optimize a few metaparameters separately for the tasks of thesaurus generation and pseudodisambiguation. Our approach, on the other hand, discriminatively sets millions of individual similarity values. Like Weeds and Weir (2005) , our similarity values are asymmetric.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 116,
"text": "Weeds and Weir (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 352,
"text": "Weeds and Weir (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Verb co-occurrence",
"sec_num": "3.3.1"
},
{
"text": "We include several simple character-based features of the noun string: the number of tokens, the case, and whether it contains digits, hyphens, an apostrophe, or other punctuation. We also include a feature for the first and last token, and fire indicator features if any token in the noun occurs on in-house lists of given names, family names, cities, provinces, countries, corporations, languages, etc. We also fire a feature if a token is a corporate designation (like inc. or ltd.) or a human one (like Mr. or Sheik).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "String-based",
"sec_num": "3.3.2"
},
{
"text": "Motivated by previous SP models that make use of semantic classes, we generated word clusters using CBC (Pantel and Lin, 2002 ) on a 10 GB corpus, giving 3620 clusters. If a noun belongs in a cluster, a corresponding feature fires. If a noun is in none of the clusters, a no-class feature fires.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 125,
"text": "(Pantel and Lin, 2002",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic classes",
"sec_num": "3.3.3"
},
{
"text": "As an example, CBC cluster 1891 contains: sidewalk, driveway, roadway, footpath, bridge, highway, road, runway, street, alley, path, Interstate, . . .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic classes",
"sec_num": "3.3.3"
},
{
"text": "In our training data, we have examples like widen highway, widen road and widen motorway. If we see that we can widen a highway, we learn that we can also widen a sidewalk, bridge, runway, etc. We also made use of the person-name/instance pairs automatically extracted by Fleischman et al. (2003) . 2 This data provides counts for pairs such as \"Edwin Moses, hurdler\" and \"William Farley, industrialist.\" We have features for all concepts and therefore learn their association with each verb.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 272,
"end": 296,
"text": "Fleischman et al. (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic classes",
"sec_num": "3.3.3"
},
{
"text": "We parsed the 3 GB AQUAINT corpus (Voorhees, 2002) using Minipar (Lin, 1998b) , and collected verb-object and verb-subject frequencies, building an empirical MI model from this data. Verbs and nouns were converted to their (possibly multi-token) root, and string case was preserved. Passive subjects (the car was bought) were converted to objects (bought car). We set the MI-threshold, \u03c4 , to be 0, and the negative-to-positive ratio, K, to be 2.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 50,
"text": "(Voorhees, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 77,
"text": "(Lin, 1998b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Set up",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Numerous previous pseudodisambiguation evaluations only include arguments that occur between 30 and 3000 times (Erk, 2007; Keller and Lapata, 2003; Rooth et al., 1999) . Presumably the lower bound is to help ensure the negative argument is unobserved because it is unsuitable, not because of data sparseness. We wish to use our model on arguments of any frequency, including those that never occurred in the training corpus (and therefore have empty cooccurrence features (Section 3.3.1)). We proceed as follows: first, we exclude pairs whenever the noun occurs less than 3 times in our corpus, removing many misspellings and other noun noise. Next, we omit verb co-occurrence features for nouns that occur less than 10 times, and instead fire a low-count feature. When we move to a new corpus, previouslyunseen nouns are treated like these low-count training nouns.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 122,
"text": "(Erk, 2007;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 147,
"text": "Keller and Lapata, 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 167,
"text": "Rooth et al., 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Set up",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "This processing results in a set of 6.8 million pairs, divided into 2318 partitions (192 of which are verb clusters (Section 3.2)). For each partition, we take 95% of the examples for training, 2.5% for development and 2.5% for a final unseen test set. We provide full results for two models: DSP cooc which only uses the verb co-occurrence features, and DSP all which uses all the features men-2 Available at http://www.mit.edu/\u02dcmbf/instances.txt.gz tioned in Section 3.3. Feature values are normalized within each feature type. We train our (linear kernel) discriminative models using SVM light (Joachims, 1999) on each partition, but set meta-parameters C (regularization) and j (cost of positive vs. negative misclassifications: max at j=2) on the macroaveraged score across all development partitions. Note that we can not use the development set to optimize \u03c4 and K because the development examples are obtained after setting these values.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 597,
"end": 613,
"text": "(Joachims, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Set up",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "It is interesting to inspect the feature weights returned by our system. In particular, the weights on the verb co-occurrence features (Section 3.3.1) provide a high-quality, argument-specific similarityranking of other verb contexts. The DSP parameters for eat, for example, place high weight on features like Pr(n|braise), Pr(n|ration), and Pr(n|garnish). Lin (1998a)'s similar word list for eat misses these but includes sleep (ranked 6) and sit (ranked 14), because these have similar subjects to eat. Discriminative, context-specific training seems to yield a better set of similar predicates, e.g. the highest-ranked contexts for DSP cooc on the verb join, 3 lead 1.42, rejoin 1.39, form 1.34, belong to 1.31, found 1.31, quit 1.29, guide 1.19, induct 1.19, launch (subj) 1.18, work at 1.14 give a better SIMS(join) for Equation (1) than the top similarities returned by (Lin, 1998a Other features are also weighted intuitively. Note that case is a strong indicator for some arguments, for example the weight on being lower-case is high for become (0.972) and eat (0.505), but highly negative for accuse (-0.675) and embroil (-0.573) which often take names of people and organizations.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 877,
"end": 888,
"text": "(Lin, 1998a",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Feature weights",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "We first evaluate DSP on disambiguating positives from pseudo-negatives, comparing to recently-",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pseudodisambiguation",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "MicroAvg Pairwise P R F P R F Acc Cov Dagan et al. (1999) 0.36 0.90 0.51 0.68 0.92 0.78 0.58 0.98 Erk (2007) 0.49 0.66 0.56 0.70 0.82 0.76 0.72 0.83 Keller and Lapata (2003) proposed systems that also require no manuallycompiled resources like WordNet. We convert Dagan et al. (1999) 's similarity-smoothed probability to MI by replacing the empirical Pr(n|v) in Equation (2) with the smoothed Pr SIM from Equation (1).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 57,
"text": "Dagan et al. (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"text": "Erk (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 173,
"text": "Keller and Lapata (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 283,
"text": "Dagan et al. (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MacroAvg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We also test an MI model inspired by Erk (2007) :",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"text": "Erk (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MacroAvg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "MI SIM (n, v) = log n \u2032 \u2208SIMS(n) Sim(n \u2032 , n) Pr(v, n \u2032 ) Pr(v)Pr(n \u2032 )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MacroAvg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We gather similar words using Lin (1998a) , mining similar verbs from a comparable-sized parsed corpus, and collecting similar nouns from a broader 10 GB corpus of English text. 4 We also use Keller and Lapata (2003) 's approach to obtaining web-counts. Rather than mining parse trees, this technique retrieves counts for the pattern \"V Det N\" in raw online text, where V is any inflection of the verb, Det is the, a, or the empty string, and N is the singular or plural form of the noun. We compute a web-based MI by collecting Pr(n, v), Pr(n), and Pr(v) using all inflections, except we only use the root form of the noun. Rather than using a search engine, we obtain counts from the Google Web 5-gram Corpus. 5 All systems are thresholded at zero to make a classification. Unlike DSP, the comparison systems may 4 For both the similar-noun and similar-verb smoothing, we only smooth over similar pairs that occurred in the corpus. While averaging over all similar pairs tends to underestimate the probability, averaging over only the observed pairs tends to overestimate it. We tested both and adopt the latter because it resulted in better performance on our development set.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 41,
"text": "Lin (1998a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 179,
"text": "4",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 216,
"text": "Keller and Lapata (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 712,
"end": 713,
"text": "5",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 815,
"end": 816,
"text": "4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MacroAvg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "5 Available from the LDC as LDC2006T13. This collection was generated from approximately 1 trillion tokens of online text. Unfortunately, tokens appearing less than 200 times have been mapped to the UNK symbol, and only N-grams appearing more than 40 times are included. Unlike results from search engines, however, experiments with this corpus are replicable. not be able to provide a score for each example. The similarity-smoothed examples will be undefined if SIMS(w) is empty. Also, the Keller and Lapata (2003) approach will be undefined if the pair is unobserved on the web. As a reasonable default for these cases, we assign them a negative decision.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 492,
"end": 516,
"text": "Keller and Lapata (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MacroAvg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We evaluate disambiguation using precision (P), recall (R), and their harmonic mean, F-Score (F). Table 1 gives the results of our comparison. In the MacroAvg results, we weight each example equally. For MicroAvg, we weight each example by the frequency of the noun. To more directly compare with previous work, we also reproduced Pairwise Disambiguation by randomly pairing each positive with one of the negatives and then evaluating each system by the percentage it ranks correctly (Acc). For the comparison approaches, if one score is undefined, we choose the other one. If both are undefined, we abstain from a decision. Coverage (Cov) is the percent of pairs where a decision was made. 6 Our simple system with only verb co-occurrence features, DSP cooc , outperforms all comparison approaches. Using the richer feature set in DSP all results in a statistically significant gain in performance, up to an F-Score of 0.65 and a pairwise disambiguation accuracy of 0.81. 7 DSP all has both broader coverage and better accuracy than all competing approaches. In the remainder of the experiments, we use DSP all and refer to it simply as DSP.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 691,
"end": 692,
"text": "6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 105,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MacroAvg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Some errors are because of plausible but unseen arguments being used as test-set pseudo-negatives. our corpus, all intuitively satisfy the verb's SPs.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MacroAvg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "MacroAvg performance is worse than MicroAvg because all systems perform better on frequent nouns. When we plot F-Score by noun frequency (Figure 1) , we see that DSP outperforms comparison approaches across all frequencies, but achieves its biggest gains on the low-frequency nouns. A richer feature set allows DSP to make correct inferences on examples that provide minimal co-occurrence data. These are also the examples for which we would expect co-occurrence models like MI to fail.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 147,
"text": "(Figure 1)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MacroAvg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As a further experiment, we re-trained D SP but with only the string-based features removed. Overall macro-averaged F-score dropped from 0.65 to 0.64 (a statistically significant reduction in performance). The system scored nearly identically to DSP on the high-frequency nouns, but performed roughly 15% worse on the nouns that occurred less than ten times. This shows that the string-based features are important for selectional preference, and particularly helpful for low-frequency nouns. Table 2 compares some of our systems on data used by Resnik (1996) (also Appendix 2 in Holmes et al. (1989) ). The plausibility of these pairs was initially judged based on the experimenters' intuitions, and later confirmed in a human experiment. We include the scores of Resnik's system, and note that its errors were attributed to sense ambiguity and other limitations of class-based approaches (Resnik, 1996) . 8",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 546,
"end": 559,
"text": "Resnik (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 580,
"end": 600,
"text": "Holmes et al. (1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 890,
"end": 904,
"text": "(Resnik, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 493,
"end": 500,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "MacroAvg",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "8 For example, warn-engine scores highly because engines are in the class entity, and physical entities (e.g. people) are often objects of warn. Unlike DSP, Resnik's approach cannot learn that for warn, \"the property of being a person is more",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Human Plausibility",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "Unseen Verb-Object Freq. All = 1 = 2 = 3 > 3 MI > 0 0.44 0.33 0.57 0.70 0.82 Freq. > 0 0.57 0.45 0.76 0.89 0.96 DSP > 0 0.73 0.69 0.80 0.85 0.88 Table 3 : Recall on identification of Verb-Object pairs from an unseen corpus (divided by pair frequency).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 152,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Seen Criteria",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The other comparison approaches also make a number of mistakes, which can often be traced to a misguided choice of similar word to smooth with. We also compare to our empirical MI model, trained on our parsed corpus. Although Resnik (1996) reported that 10 of the 16 plausible pairs did not occur in his training corpus, all of them occurred in ours and hence MI gives very reasonable scores on the plausible objects. It has no statistics, however, for many of the implausible ones. DSP can make finer decisions than MI, recognizing that \"warning an engine\" is more absurd than \"judging a climate.\"",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 226,
"end": 239,
"text": "Resnik (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Seen Criteria",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We next compare MI and DSP on a much larger set of plausible examples, and also test how well the models generalize across data sets. We took the MI and DSP systems trained on AQUAINT and asked them to rate observed (and thus likely plausible) verb-object pairs taken from an unseen corpus. We extracted the pairs by parsing the San Jose Mercury News (SJM) section of the TIPSTER corpus (Harman, 1992) . Each unique verb-object pair is a single instance in this evaluation. Table 3 gives recall across all pairs (All) and grouped by pair-frequency in the unseen corpus (1, 2, 3, >3). DSP accepts far more pairs than MI (73% vs. 44%), even far more than a system that accepts any previously observed verb-object combination as plausible (57%). Recall is higher on more frequent verb-object pairs, but 70% of the pairs occurred only once in the corpus. Even if we smooth MI by smoothing Pr(n|v) in Equation 2 using modified KN-smoothing (Chen and Goodman, 1998) , the recall of MI>0 on SJM only increases from 44.1% to 44.9%, still far below DSP. Frequency-based models have fundamentally low coverage. As furimportant than the property of being an entity\" (Resnik, 1996 (Holmes et al., 1989) . Mistakes are marked with an asterisk (*), undefined scores are marked with a dash (-). Only DSP is completely defined and completely correct. ther evidence, if we build a model of MI on the SJM corpus and use it in our pseudodisambiguation experiment (Section 4.3), MI>0 gets a MacroAvg precision of 86% but a MacroAvg recall of only 12%. 9",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 387,
"end": 401,
"text": "(Harman, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 922,
"end": 959,
"text": "KN-smoothing (Chen and Goodman, 1998)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1155,
"end": 1168,
"text": "(Resnik, 1996",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 1169,
"end": 1190,
"text": "(Holmes et al., 1989)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 474,
"end": 481,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Unseen Verb-Object Identification",
"sec_num": "4.5"
},
{
"text": "Finally, we evaluate DSP on a common application of selectional preferences: choosing the correct antecedent for pronouns in text (Dagan and Itai, 1990; Kehler et al., 2004) . We study the cases where a 9 Recall that even the Keller and Lapata (2003) system, built on the world's largest corpus, achieves only 34% recall (Table 1) (with only 48% of positives and 27% of all pairs previously observed, but see Footnote 5).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 152,
"text": "(Dagan and Itai, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 173,
"text": "Kehler et al., 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 204,
"text": "9",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 250,
"text": "Keller and Lapata (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 321,
"end": 330,
"text": "(Table 1)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pronoun Resolution",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "pronoun is the direct object of a verb predicate, v. A pronoun's antecedent must obey v's selectional preferences. If we have a better model of SP, we should be able to better select pronoun antecedents.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pronoun Resolution",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "We parsed the MUC-7 (1997) coreference corpus and extracted all pronouns in a direct object relation. For each pronoun, p, modified by a verb, v, we extracted all preceding nouns within the current or previous sentence. Thirty-nine anaphoric pronouns had an antecedent in this window and are used in the evaluation. For each p, let N (p) + by the set of preceding nouns coreferent with p, and let N (p) \u2212 be the remaining non-coreferent nouns. We take all (v, n + ) where n + \u2208 N (p) + as positive, and all other pairs",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pronoun Resolution",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "(v, n \u2212 ), n \u2212 \u2208 N (p) \u2212 as negative.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pronoun Resolution",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "We compare MI and DSP on this set, classifying every (v, n) with MI>T (or DSP>T ) as positive. By varying T , we get a precision-recall curve (Figure 2) . Precision is low because, of course, there are many nouns that satisfy the predicate's SPs that are not coreferent. DSP>0 has both a higher recall and higher precision than accepting every pair previously seen in text (the right-most point on MI>T ). The DSP>T system achieves higher precision than MI>T for points where recall is greater than 60% (where MI<0). Interestingly, the recall of MI>0 is System Acc Most-Recent Noun 17.9% Maximum MI 28.2% Maximum DSP 38.5% Table 4 : Pronoun resolution accuracy on nouns in current or previous sentence in MUC.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 152,
"text": "(Figure 2)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 630,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pronoun Resolution",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "higher here than it is for general verb-objects (Section 4.5). On the subset of pairs with strong empirical association (MI>0), MI generally outperforms DSP at equivalent recall values. We next compare MI and DSP as stand-alone pronoun resolution systems (Table 4) . As a standard baseline, for each pronoun, we choose the most recent noun in text as the pronoun's antecedent, achieving 17.9% resolution accuracy. This baseline is quite low because many of the most-recent nouns are subjects of the pronoun's verb phrase, and therefore resolution violates syntactic coreference constraints. If instead we choose the previous noun with the highest MI as antecedent, we get an accuracy of 28.2%, while choosing the previous noun with the highest DSP achieves 38.5%. DSP resolves 37% more pronouns correctly than MI. We leave as future work a full-scale pronoun resolution system that incorporates both MI and DSP as backed-off, interpolated, or separate semantic features.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 255,
"end": 264,
"text": "(Table 4)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pronoun Resolution",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "We have presented a simple, effective model of selectional preference based on discriminative training. Supervised techniques typically achieve higher performance than unsupervised models, and we duplicate these gains with DSP. Here, however, these gains come at no additional labeling cost, as training examples are generated automatically from unlabeled text. DSP allows an arbitrary combination of features, including verb co-occurrence features that yield high-quality similar-word lists as latent output. This work only scratches the surface of possible feature mining; information from WordNet relations, Wikipedia categories, or parallel corpora could also provide valuable clues to SP. Also, if any other system were to exceed DSP's performance, it could also be included as one of DSP's features.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and Future Work",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "It would be interesting to expand our co-occurrence features, including co-occurrence counts across more grammatical relations and using counts from external, unparsed corpora like the world wide web. We could also reverse the role of noun and verb in our training, having verb-specific features and discriminating separately for each argument noun. The latent information would then be lists of similar nouns. Finally, note that while we focused on word-word co-occurrences, sense-sense SPs can also be learned with our algorithm. If our training corpus was senselabeled, we could run our algorithm over the senses rather than the words. The resulting model would then require sense-tagged input if it were to be used within an application like parsing or coreference resolution. Also, like other models of SP, our technique can also be used for sense disambiguations: the weightings on our semantic class features indicate, for a particular noun, which of its senses (classes) is most compatible with each verb.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and Future Work",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "For a fixed verb, MI is proportional toKeller and Lapata (2003)'s conditional probability scores for pseudodisambiguation of (v, n, n \u2032 ) triples: Pr(v|n) = Pr(v, n)/Pr(n), which was shown to be a better measure of association than co-occurrence frequency f (v, n). Normalizing by Pr(v) (yielding MI) allows us to use a constant threshold across all verbs. MI was also recently used for inference-rule SPs byPantel et al. (2007).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Which all correspond to nouns occurring in the object position of the verb (e.g. Pr obj (n|lead)), except \"launch (subj)\" which corresponds to Pr subj (n|launch).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "I.e. we use the \"half coverage\" condition fromErk (2007).7 The differences between DSP all and all comparison systems are statistically significant (McNemar's test, p<0.01).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "We gratefully acknowledge support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Alberta Ingenuity Fund, and the Alberta Informatics Circle of Research Excellence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "A neural probabilistic language model",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yoshua",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bengio",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R\u00e9jean",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ducharme",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Pascal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vincent",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Janvin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Journal of Machine Learning Research",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1137--1155",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yoshua Bengio, R\u00e9jean Ducharme, Pascal Vincent, and Christian Janvin. 2003. A neural probabilistic lan- guage model. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:1137-1155.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Intricacies of Collins' parsing model",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Daniel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bikel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "30",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "479--511",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Daniel M. Bikel. 2004. Intricacies of Collins' parsing model. Computational Linguistics, 30(4):479-511.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Distributed latent variable models of lexical cooccurrences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Blitzer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Amir",
"middle": [],
"last": "Globerson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "AISTATS",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "John Blitzer, Amir Globerson, and Fernando Pereira. 2005. Distributed latent variable models of lexical co- occurrences. In AISTATS.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Avrim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Blum",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tom",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mitchell",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLT",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "92--100",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Avrim Blum and Tom Mitchell. 1998. Combining la- beled and unlabeled data with co-training. In Proceed- ings of COLT, pages 92-100.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Evaluating and combining approaches to selectional preference acquisition",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Carsten",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brockmann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mirella",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lapata",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "EACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "27--34",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Carsten Brockmann and Mirella Lapata. 2003. Evalu- ating and combining approaches to selectional prefer- ence acquisition. In EACL, pages 27-34.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "An empirical study of smoothing techniques for language modeling",
"authors": [
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stanley",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Joshua",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goodman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stanley F. Chen and Joshua Goodman. 1998. An empir- ical study of smoothing techniques for language mod- eling. TR-10-98, Harvard University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kenneth",
"middle": [
"Ward"
],
"last": "Church",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Patrick",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hanks",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "16",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "22--29",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kenneth Ward Church and Patrick Hanks. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicogra- phy. Computational Linguistics, 16(1):22-29.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Class-based probability estimation using a semantic hierarchy",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clark",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "28",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "187--206",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stephen Clark and David Weir. 2002. Class-based prob- ability estimation using a semantic hierarchy. Compu- tational Linguistics, 28(2):187-206.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Supportvector networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Corinna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cortes",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Vladimir",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vapnik",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "Machine Learning",
"volume": "20",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "273--297",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Corinna Cortes and Vladimir Vapnik. 1995. Support- vector networks. Machine Learning, 20(3):273-297.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Automatic processing of large corpora for the resolution of anaphora references",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ido",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dagan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Itai",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "COLING",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "",
"pages": "330--332",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ido Dagan and Alan Itai. 1990. Automatic processing of large corpora for the resolution of anaphora references. In COLING, volume 3, pages 330-332.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Similarity-based models of word cooccurrence probabilities",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lillian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ido Dagan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [
"C N"
],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Machine Learning",
"volume": "34",
"issue": "",
"pages": "43--69",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ido Dagan, Lillian Lee, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 1999. Similarity-based models of word cooccurrence probabilities. Machine Learning, 34(1-3):43-69.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "A simple, similarity-based model for selectional preference",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Katrin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Erk",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "216--223",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Katrin Erk. 2007. A simple, similarity-based model for selectional preference. In ACL, pages 216-223.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "A classification approach to word prediction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yair",
"middle": [],
"last": "Even-Zohar",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roth",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "NAACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "124--131",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yair Even-Zohar and Dan Roth. 2000. A classification approach to word prediction. In NAACL, pages 124- 131.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Offline strategies for online question answering: answering questions before they are asked",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fleischman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eduard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hovy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Abdessamad",
"middle": [],
"last": "Echihabi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--7",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Michael Fleischman, Eduard Hovy, and Abdessamad Echihabi. 2003. Offline strategies for online question answering: answering questions before they are asked. In ACL, pages 1-7.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "The DARPA TIPSTER project",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Donna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Harman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "ACM SIGIR Forum",
"volume": "26",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "26--28",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Donna Harman. 1992. The DARPA TIPSTER project. ACM SIGIR Forum, 26(2):26-28.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Lexical expectations in parsing complementverb sentences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Virginia",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Holmes",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Laurie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stowe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Linda",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cupples",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1989,
"venue": "Journal of Memory and Language",
"volume": "28",
"issue": "",
"pages": "668--689",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Virginia M. Holmes, Laurie Stowe, and Linda Cupples. 1989. Lexical expectations in parsing complement- verb sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 28:668-689.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Making large-scale Support Vector Machine learning practical",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Thorsten",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joachims",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Advances in Kernel Methods: Support Vector Machines",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "169--184",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Thorsten Joachims. 1999. Making large-scale Support Vector Machine learning practical. In B. Sch\u00f6lkopf and C. Burges, editors, Advances in Kernel Methods: Support Vector Machines, pages 169-184. MIT-Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "The (non)utility of predicateargument frequencies for pronoun interpretation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kehler",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Douglas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Appelt",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Taylor",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aleksandr",
"middle": [],
"last": "Simma",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "HLT/NAACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "289--296",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Andrew Kehler, Douglas Appelt, Lara Taylor, and Alek- sandr Simma. 2004. The (non)utility of predicate- argument frequencies for pronoun interpretation. In HLT/NAACL, pages 289-296.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Using the web to obtain frequencies for unseen bigrams",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Frank",
"middle": [],
"last": "Keller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mirella",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lapata",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "29",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "459--484",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Frank Keller and Mirella Lapata. 2003. Using the web to obtain frequencies for unseen bigrams. Computational Linguistics, 29(3):459-484.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Generalizing case frames using a thesaurus and the MDL principle",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Naoki",
"middle": [],
"last": "Abe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "24",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "217--244",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hang Li and Naoki Abe. 1998. Generalizing case frames using a thesaurus and the MDL principle. Computa- tional Linguistics, 24(2):217-244.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dekang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "COLING-ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "768--773",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dekang Lin. 1998a. Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words. In COLING-ACL, pages 768-773.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Dependency-based evaluation of MINIPAR",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dekang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "LREC Workshop on the Evaluation of Parsing Systems",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dekang Lin. 1998b. Dependency-based evaluation of MINIPAR. In LREC Workshop on the Evaluation of Parsing Systems.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Introduction to WordNet: an on-line lexical database",
"authors": [
{
"first": "George",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Miller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Beckwith",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christiane",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fellbaum",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Derek",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gross",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Katherine",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Miller",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "International Journal of Lexicography",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "235--244",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "George A. Miller, Richard Beckwith, Christiane Fell- baum, Derek Gross, and Katherine J. Miller. 1990. Introduction to WordNet: an on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4):235-244.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Proceedings of the Seventh Message Understanding Conference",
"authors": [],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "MUC-7. 1997. Coreference task definition (v3.0, 13 Jul 97). In Proceedings of the Seventh Message Under- standing Conference (MUC-7).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "A discriminative language model with pseudo-negative samples",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daisuke",
"middle": [],
"last": "Okanohara",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jun'ichi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tsujii",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "73--80",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Daisuke Okanohara and Jun'ichi Tsujii. 2007. A discriminative language model with pseudo-negative samples. In ACL, pages 73-80.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Discovering word senses from text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Patrick",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pantel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dekang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "KDD",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "613--619",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Patrick Pantel and Dekang Lin. 2002. Discovering word senses from text. In KDD, pages 613-619.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "ISP: Learning inferential selectional preferences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Patrick",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pantel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rahul",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bhagat",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bonaventura",
"middle": [],
"last": "Coppola",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Timothy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chklovski",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eduard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hovy",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "NAACL-HLT",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "564--571",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Patrick Pantel, Rahul Bhagat, Bonaventura Coppola, Timothy Chklovski, and Eduard Hovy. 2007. ISP: Learning inferential selectional preferences. In NAACL-HLT, pages 564-571.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational realization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Philip",
"middle": [],
"last": "Resnik",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Cognition",
"volume": "61",
"issue": "",
"pages": "127--159",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Philip Resnik. 1996. Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational re- alization. Cognition, 61:127-159.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Learning selectional preferences for entailment or paraphrasing rules",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Basili",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roberto",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Diego",
"middle": [
"De"
],
"last": "Cao",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Paolo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marocco",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marco",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pennacchiotti",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "RANLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Basili Roberto, Diego De Cao, Paolo Marocco, and Marco Pennacchiotti. 2007. Learning selectional preferences for entailment or paraphrasing rules. In RANLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Inducing a semantically annotated lexicon via EM-based clustering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mats",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rooth",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stefan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Riezler",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Detlef",
"middle": [],
"last": "Prescher",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "104--111",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mats Rooth, Stefan Riezler, Detlef Prescher, Glenn Car- roll, and Franz Beil. 1999. Inducing a semantically annotated lexicon via EM-based clustering. In ACL, pages 104-111.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Contrastive estimation: training log-linear models on unlabeled data",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Noah",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jason",
"middle": [],
"last": "Smith",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eisner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "354--362",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Noah A. Smith and Jason Eisner. 2005. Contrastive esti- mation: training log-linear models on unlabeled data. In ACL, pages 354-362.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "Overview of the TREC 2002 question answering track",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ellen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Voorhees",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Eleventh Text REtrieval Conference (TREC)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ellen Voorhees. 2002. Overview of the TREC 2002 question answering track. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Text REtrieval Conference (TREC).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "Strictly lexical dependency parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Qin Iris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dale",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schuurmans",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dekang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "International Workshop on Parsing Technologies",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "152--159",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Qin Iris Wang, Dale Schuurmans, and Dekang Lin. 2005. Strictly lexical dependency parsing. In International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, pages 152-159.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF33": {
"ref_id": "b33",
"title": "Co-occurrence retrieval: a flexible framework for lexical distributional similarity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Julie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weeds",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "31",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "439--475",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Julie Weeds and David Weir. 2005. Co-occurrence re- trieval: a flexible framework for lexical distributional similarity. Computational Linguistics, 31(4):439-475.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "For example, for the verb damage, DSP's three most high-scoring false positives are the nouns jetliner, carpet, and gear. While none occur with damage in Disambiguation results by noun frequency."
},
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "Pronoun resolution precision-recall on MUC."
},
"TABREF3": {
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"html": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"text": "Selectional ratings for plausible/implausible direct objects"
}
}
}
} |