File size: 105,978 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 | {
"paper_id": "P13-1007",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:35:27.692093Z"
},
"title": "Plurality, Negation, and Quantification: Towards Comprehensive Quantifier Scope Disambiguation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mehdi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manshadi",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Rochester",
"location": {
"addrLine": "734 Computer Studies Building Rochester",
"postCode": "14627",
"region": "NY"
}
},
"email": "mehdih@cs.rochester.edu"
},
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gildea",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Rochester",
"location": {
"addrLine": "734 Computer Studies Building Rochester",
"postCode": "14627",
"region": "NY"
}
},
"email": "gildea@cs.rochester.edu"
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Allen",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Rochester",
"location": {
"addrLine": "734 Computer Studies Building Rochester",
"postCode": "14627",
"region": "NY"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Recent work on statistical quantifier scope disambiguation (QSD) has improved upon earlier work by scoping an arbitrary number and type of noun phrases. No corpusbased method, however, has yet addressed QSD when incorporating the implicit universal of plurals and/or operators such as negation. In this paper we report early, though promising, results for automatic QSD when handling both phenomena. We also present a general model for learning to build partial orders from a set of pairwise preferences. We give an n log n algorithm for finding a guaranteed approximation of the optimal solution, which works very well in practice. Finally, we significantly improve the performance of the previous model using a rich set of automatically generated features.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P13-1007",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Recent work on statistical quantifier scope disambiguation (QSD) has improved upon earlier work by scoping an arbitrary number and type of noun phrases. No corpusbased method, however, has yet addressed QSD when incorporating the implicit universal of plurals and/or operators such as negation. In this paper we report early, though promising, results for automatic QSD when handling both phenomena. We also present a general model for learning to build partial orders from a set of pairwise preferences. We give an n log n algorithm for finding a guaranteed approximation of the optimal solution, which works very well in practice. Finally, we significantly improve the performance of the previous model using a rich set of automatically generated features.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The sentence there is one faculty member in every graduate committee is ambiguous with respect to quantifier scoping, since there are at least two possible readings: If one has wide scope, there is a unique faculty member on every committee. If every has wide scope, there can be different faculty members on each committee. Over the past decade there has been some work on statistical quantifier scope disambiguation (QSD) (Higgins and Sadock, 2003; Galen and MacCartney, 2004; Manshadi and Allen, 2011a) . However, the extent of the work has been quite limited for several reasons. First, in the past two decades, the main focus of the NLP community has been on shallow text processing. As a deep processing task, QSD is not essential for many NLP applications that do not require deep understanding. Second, there has been a lack of comprehensive scope-disambiguated corpora, resulting in the lack of work on extensive statistical QSD. Third, QSD has often been considered only in the context of explicit quantification such as each and every versus some and a/an. These co-occurrences do not happen very often in real-life data. For example, Higgins and Sadock (2003) find fewer than 1000 sentences with two or more explicit quantifiers in the Wall Street journal section of Penn Treebank. Furthermore, for more than 60% of those sentences, the order of the quantifiers does not matter, either as a result of the logical equivalence (as in two existentials), or because they do not have any scope interaction.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 424,
"end": 450,
"text": "(Higgins and Sadock, 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 478,
"text": "Galen and MacCartney, 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 479,
"end": 505,
"text": "Manshadi and Allen, 2011a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 1146,
"end": 1171,
"text": "Higgins and Sadock (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Having said that, with deep language processing receiving more attention in recent years, QSD is becoming a real-life issue. 1 At the same time, new scope-disambiguated corpora have become available (Manshadi et al., 2011b) . In this paper, we aim at tackling the third issue mentioned above. We push statistical QSD beyond explicit quantification, and address an interesting, yet practically important, problem in QSD: plurality and quantification. In spite of an extensive literature in theoretical semantics (Hamm and Hinrichs, 2010; Landmann, 2000) , this topic has not been well investigated in computational linguistics. To illustrate the phenomenon, consider (1):",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 199,
"end": 223,
"text": "(Manshadi et al., 2011b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 536,
"text": "(Hamm and Hinrichs, 2010;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 537,
"end": 552,
"text": "Landmann, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "1. Three words start with a capital letter.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "A deep understanding of this sentence, requires deciding whether each word in the set, referred to by Three words, starts with a potentially distinct capital letter (as in Apple, Orange, Banana) or there is a unique capital letter which each word starts with (as in Apple, Adam, Athens). By treating the NP Three words as a single atomic entity, earlier work on automatic QSD has overlooked this problem. In general, every plural NP potentially introduces an implicit universal, ranging over the collection of entities introduced by the plural. 2 Scoping this implicit universal is just as important. While explicit universals may not occur very often in natural language, the usage of plurals is very common. Plurals form 18% of the NPs in our corpus and 20% of the nouns in Penn Treebank. Explicit universals, on the other hand, form less than 1% of the determiners in Penn Treebank. Quantifiers are also affected by negation. Previous work (e.g., Morante and Blanco, 2012) has investigated automatically detecting the scope and focus of negation. However, the scope of negation with respect to quantifiers is a different phenomenon. Consider the following sentence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 950,
"end": 975,
"text": "Morante and Blanco, 2012)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "2. The word does not start with a capital letter. Transforming this sentence into a meaning representation language, for almost any practical purposes, requires deciding whether the NP a capital letter lies in the scope of the negation or outside of it. The former describes the preferred reading where The word starts with a lowercase letter as in apple, orange, banana, but the latter gives the unlikely reading, according to which there exists a particular capital letter, say A, that The word starts with, as in apple, Orange, Banana. By not involving negation in quantifier scoping, a semantic parser may produce an unintended interpretation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Previous work on statistical QSD has been quite restricted. Higgins and Sadock (2003) , which we refer to as HS03, developed the first statistical QSD system for English. Their system disambiguates the scope of exactly two explicitly quantified NPs in a sentence, ignoring indefinite a/an, definites and bare NPs. Manshadi and Allen (2011a) , hence MA11, go beyond those limitations and scope an arbitrary number of NPs in a sentence with no restriction on the type of quantification. However, although their corpus annotates the scope of negations and the implicit universal of plurals, their QSD system does not handle those.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 85,
"text": "Higgins and Sadock (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 340,
"text": "Manshadi and Allen (2011a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "As a step towards comprehensive automatic QSD, in this paper we present our work on automatic scoping of the implicit universal of plurals and negations. For data, we use a new revision of MA11's corpus, first introduced in Manshadi et al. (2011b) . The new revision, called QuanText, carries a more detailed, fine-grained scope annotation (Manshadi et al., 2012) . The performance of our model defines a baseline for future efforts on (comprehensive) QSD over QuanText. In addition to addressing plurality and negation, this work improves upon MA11's in two directions.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 224,
"end": 247,
"text": "Manshadi et al. (2011b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 363,
"text": "(Manshadi et al., 2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 We theoretically justify MA11's ternaryclassification approach, formulating it as a general framework for learning to build partial orders. An n log n algorithm is then given to find a guaranteed approximation within a fixed ratio of the optimal solution from a set of pairwise preferences (Sect. 3.1).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 We replace MA11's hand-annotated features with a set of automatically generated linguistic features. Our rich set of features significantly improves the performance of the QSD model, even though we give up the goldstandard dependency features (Sect. 3.3).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In QuanText, scope-bearing elements (or, as we call them, scopal terms) of each sentence have been identified using labeled chunks, as in (3). NP chunks follow the definition of baseNP (Ramshaw and Marcus, 1995) and hence are flat. Outscoping relations are used to specify the relative scope of scopal terms. The relation i > j means that chunk i outscopes (or has wide scope over) chunk j. Equivalently, chunk j is said to have narrow scope with respect to i. Each sentence is annotated with its most preferred scoping (according to the annotators' judgement), represented as a partial order:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 211,
"text": "(Ramshaw and Marcus, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Task definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "4. SI : (2 > 1 > 4; 1 > 3)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Task definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "If neither i > j nor j > i is entailed from the scoping, i and j are incomparable. This happens if both orders are equivalent (as in two existentials) or when the two chunks have no scope interaction. Since a partial order can be represented by a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), we use DAGs to represent scopings. For example, G 1 in Figure 1 represents the scoping in (4).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 332,
"end": 340,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Task definition",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Given the gold standard DAG G g = (V, E g ) and the predicted DAG G p = (V, E p ), a similarity measure may be defined based on the ratio of the number of pairs (of nodes) labeled correctly to the ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation metrics",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "(b) G + 1 2 1 4 3 (c) G2 2 1 3 4 (d) G3",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation metrics",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Figure 1: Scoping as DAG total number of pairs. In order to take the transitivity of outscoping relations into account, we use the transitive closure (TC) of DAGs. Let Figure 1 illustrate this concept. We now define the similiarty metric S + as follows:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 176,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation metrics",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "G + = (V, E + ) represent the TC of a DAG G = (V, E). 3 G 1 and G + 1 in",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation metrics",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "\u03c3 + = |E + p \u2229 E + g | \u222a |\u0112 + p \u2229\u0112 + g | |V |(|V | \u2212 1)/2 (1) in which\u1e20 = (V,\u0112)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation metrics",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "is the complement of the underlying undirected version of G. HS03 and others have used such a similarity measure for evaluation purposes. A disadvantage of this metric is that it gives the same weight to outscoping and incomparability relations. In practice, if two scopal terms with equivalent ordering (and hence, no outscoping relation) are incorrectly labeled with an outscoping, the logical form still remains valid. But if an outscoping relation is mislabeled, it will change the interpretation of the sentence. Therefore, in MA11, we suggest defining a precision/recall based on the number of outscoping relations recovered correctly: 4",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation metrics",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "P + = |E + p \u2229 E + g | |E + p | , R + = |E + p \u2229 E + g | |E + g | (2) 3 (u, v) \u2208 G + \u21d0\u21d2 ((u, v) \u2208 G \u2228 \u2203w1 . . . wn \u2208 V, (u, w1) . . . (wn, v) \u2208 E ) 4 MA11",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation metrics",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "argues that TC-based metrics tend to produce higher numbers. For example if G3 in Figure 1 is a goldstandard DAG and G1 is a candidate DAG, TC-based metrics count 2 > 3 as another match, even though it is entailed from 2 > 1 and 1 > 3. They give an alternative metric based on transitive reduction (TR), obtained by removing all the redundant edges of a DAG. TR-based metrics, however, have their own disadvantage. For example, if G2 is another candidate for G3, TR-based metrics produce the same numbers for both G1 and G2, even though G1 is clearly closer to G3 than G2. Therefore, in this paper we stick to TC-based metrics.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 90,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation metrics",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "3 Our framework",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation metrics",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Since we defined QSD as a partial ordering, automatic QSD would become the problem of learning to build partial orders. The machine learning community has studied the problem of learning total orders (ranking) in depth (Cohen et al., 1999; Furnkranz and Hullermeier, 2003; Hullermeier et al., 2008) . Many ranking systems create partial orders as output when the confidence level for the relative order of two objects is below some threshold. However, the target being a partial order is a fundamentally different problem. While the lack of order between two elements is interpreted as the lack of confidence in the former, it should be interpreted as incomparability in the latter. Learning to build partial orders has not attracted much attention in the learning community, although as seen shortly, the techniques developed for ranking can be adopted for learning to build partial orders.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 219,
"end": 239,
"text": "(Cohen et al., 1999;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 272,
"text": "Furnkranz and Hullermeier, 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 298,
"text": "Hullermeier et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "As mentioned before, a partial order P can be represented by a DAG G, with a preceding b in P if and only if a reaches b in G by a directed path. Although there could be many DAGs representing a partial order P , only one of those is a transitive DAG. 5 Therefore, in order to have a one-to-one relationship between QSDs and DAGs, we only consider the class of transitive DAGs, or TDAG. Every non-transitive DAG will be converted into its transitive counterpart by taking its transitive closure (as shown in Figure 1 ).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 508,
"end": 516,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Consider V , a set of nodes and a TDAG G = (V, E). It would help to think of disconnected nodes u, v of G, as connected with a null edge . We define the labeling function \u03b4 G : V \u00d7 V \u2212\u2192 {+, \u2212, } assigning one of the three labels to each pair of nodes in G:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "\u03b4 G (u, v) = \uf8f1 \uf8f2 \uf8f3 + (u, v) \u2208 G \u2212 (v, u) \u2208 G otherwise",
"eq_num": "(3)"
}
],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Given the true TDAG\u011c = (V,\u00ca), and a candidate TDAG G, we define the Loss function to be the total number of incorrect edges:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "L(G,\u011c) = u\u227av\u2208V I(\u03b4 G (u, v) = \u03b4\u011c(u, v)) (4)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "in which \u227a is an arbitrary total order over the nodes in V 6 , and I(\u2022) is the indicator function. We adopt a minimum Bayes risk (MBR) approach, with the goal of finding the graph with the lowest expected loss against the (unknown) target graph:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "G * = argmin G\u2208TDAG E\u011c L(G,\u011c)",
"eq_num": "(5)"
}
],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Substituting in the definition of the loss function and exchanging the order of the expectation and summation, we get:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "G * = argmin G\u2208TDAG u\u227av\u2208V E\u011c I(\u03b4 G (u, v) = \u03b4\u011c(u, v) = argmin G\u2208TDAG u\u227av\u2208V P (\u03b4 G (u, v) = \u03b4\u011c(u, v)) (6)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "This means that in order to solve Eq. 5, we need only the probabilities of each of the three labels for each of the C(n, 2) = n(n \u2212 1)/2 pairs of nodes 7 in the graph, rather than a probability for each of the superexponentially many possible graphs. We train a classifier to estimate these probabilities directly for a given pair. Therefore, we have reduced the problem of predicting a partial order to pairwise comparison, analogous to ranking by pairwise comparison or RPC (Hullermeier et al., 2008; Furnkranz and Hullermeier, 2003) , a popular technique in learning total orders. The difference though is that in RPC, the comparison is a (soft) binary classification, while for partial orders we have the case of incomparability (the label ), hence a (soft) ternary classification. A soft ternary classifier generates three probabilities, p u,v (+), p u,v (\u2212), and p u,v ( ) for each pair (u, v), 8 corresponding to the three labels. Hence, equation Eq. (6) can be rearranged as follows:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 476,
"end": 502,
"text": "(Hullermeier et al., 2008;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 503,
"end": 535,
"text": "Furnkranz and Hullermeier, 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "G * = argmax G\u2208TDAG u\u227av\u2208V p u,v (\u03b4 G (u, v))",
"eq_num": "(7)"
}
],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Let \u0393 p be a graph like the one in Figure 2 , containing exactly three edges between every two nodes, weighted by the probabilities from the n(n \u2212 1)/2 classifiers. We call \u0393 p the preference graph. Intuitively speaking, the solution to Eq. (7) is the transitive directed acyclic subgraph of \u0393 p that has the maximum sum of weights. Unfortunately finding this subgraph is an NP-hard problem. 9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 43,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "7 Throughout this subsection, unless otherwise specified, by a pair of nodes we mean a pair (u, v) with u \u227a v.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "8 pv,u for u \u227a v is defined in the obvious way: pv,u(+) = pu,v(\u2212), pv,u(\u2212) = pu,v(+), and pv,u( ) = pu,v( ).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "9 The proof is beyond the scope of this paper, but the idea is similar to that of Cohen et al. (1999) , on finding total orders. Although they don't use an RPC technique, Cohen et Figure 2 : A preference graph over three nodes.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 101,
"text": "Cohen et al. (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 180,
"end": 188,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "1. Let \u0393p be the preference graph and set G to \u2205.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "2. \u2200u \u2208 V , let \u03c0(u) = v pu,v(+)\u2212 v pu,v(\u2212). 3. Let u * = argmax u \u03c0(u), S \u2212 = v\u2208G pv,u * (\u2212) & S = v\u2208G pv,u * ( ).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "4. Remove u * and all its incident edges from \u0393p.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "5. Add u * to G; also if S \u2212 > S , for every v \u2208 G \u2212 u * , add (v, u * ) to G.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "6. If \u0393p is empty, output G, otherwise repeat steps 2-5. Figure 3 : An approximation algorithm for Eq. 7Since it is very unlikely to find an efficient algorithm to solve Eq. 7, instead, we propose the algorithm in Figure 3 which finds an approximate solution. The idea of the algorithm is simple. By finding u * with the highest \u03c0(u) in step 3, we form a topological order for the nodes in G in a greedy way (see Footnote 9). We then add u * to G. A directed edge is added either from every node in G\u2212u * to u * or from no node, depending on which case makes the sum of the weights in G higher. Figure 3 is a 1/3-OPT approximation algorithm for Eq. (7).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 65,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 222,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 595,
"end": 603,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning to do QSD",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Proof idea. First of all, note that G is a TDAG, because edges are only added to the most recently created node in step 5. Let OP T be the optimum value of the right hand side of Eq. (7). The sum of all the weights in \u0393 p is an upper bound for OP T :",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Theorem 1 The algorithm in",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "u\u227av\u2208V \u03bb\u2208{+,\u2212, } p u,v (\u03bb) \u2265 OP T",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Theorem 1 The algorithm in",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Step 5 of the algorithm guarantees that the labels",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Theorem 1 The algorithm in",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "\u03b4 G (u, v) satisfy: u\u227av\u2208V p u,v (\u03b4 G (u, v)) \u2265 u\u227av\u2208V p u,v (\u03bb)",
"eq_num": "(8)"
}
],
"section": "Theorem 1 The algorithm in",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "al. (1999) encounter a similar optimization problem. They propose an approximation algorithm which finds the solution (a total order) in a greedy way. Here we use the same greedy technique to find a total order, but take it only as the topological order of the solution (Figure 3 ).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 270,
"end": 279,
"text": "(Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Theorem 1 The algorithm in",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "for any \u03bb \u2208 {+, \u2212, }. Hence:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Theorem 1 The algorithm in",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "u\u227av\u2208V p u,v (\u03b4 G (u, v)) = 1 3 3 u\u227av\u2208V p u,v (\u03b4 G (u, v)) \u2265 1 3 u\u227av\u2208V \u03bb\u2208{+,\u2212, } p u,v (\u03bb) \u2265 1 3 OP T",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Theorem 1 The algorithm in",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In practice, we improve the algorithm in Figure 3 , while maintaining the approximation guarantee, as follows. When adding a node u * to graph G, we do not make a binary decision as to whether connect every node in G to u * or none, but we use some heuristics to choose a subset of nodes (possibly empty) in G that if connected to u * results in a TDAG whose sum of weights is at least as big as the binary none-vs-all case. As described in Sec. 4, the algorithm works very well in our QSD system, finding the optimum solution in virtually all cases we examined.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 49,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Theorem 1 The algorithm in",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Consider the following sentence with the plural NP chunk the lines. 5. Merge [1p/ the lines], ending in [2/ a punctuation], with [3/ the next non-blank line]. 6. SI : (1c > 1d > 2; 1d > 3) 10 In QuanText, plural chunks are indexed with a number followed by the lowercase letter \"p\". As seen in (6), the scoping looks different from before in that the terms 1d and 1c are not the label of any chunk. These two terms refer to the two quantified terms introduced by the plural chunk 1p: 1c (for collection) represents the set (or in better words collection) of entities, defined by the plural, and 1d (for distribution) refers to the implicit universal, introduced by the plural. In other words, for a plural chunk ip, id represents the universally quantified entity over the collection ic. The outscoping relation 1d > 2 in (6) states that every line in the collection, denoted by 1c, starts with its own punctuation character. Similarly, 1d > 3 indicates that every line has its own next non-blank line. Figure 4(a) shows a DAG for the scoping in (6).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 191,
"text": "10",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1003,
"end": 1014,
"text": "Figure 4(a)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dealing with plurality and negation",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "In (7) we have a sentence containing a negation. In QuanText, negation chunks are labeled with an uppercase \"N\" followed by a number. 10 This scoping corresponds to the logical formula:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 136,
"text": "10",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dealing with plurality and negation",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Dx1c, Collection(x1c) \u2227 \u2200x 1d , In(x 1d , x1c) \u21d2 (Line(x 1d )\u2227(\u2203x2, P unctuation(x2)\u2227EndIn(x 1d , x2))\u2227 (Dx3, \u00acblank(x3) \u2227 next(x 1d , x3) \u2227 merge(x 1d , x3)))",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dealing with plurality and negation",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "It is straightforward to write a formula for, say, 1c > 2 > 1d. 8. SI :",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dealing with plurality and negation",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "(2 > 1 > 3; 1 > N 1 > 4)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dealing with plurality and negation",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "As seen here, a negation simply introduces a chunk, which participates in outscoping relations like an NP chunk. Figure 4(b) represents the scoping in (8) as a DAG. From these examples, as long as we create two nodes in the DAG corresponding to each plural chunk, and one node corresponding to each negation, there is no need to modify the underlying model (defined in the previous section). However, when u (or v) is a negation (N i) or an implicit universal (id) node, the probabilities p \u03bb u,v (\u03bb \u2208 {+, \u2212, }) may come from a different source, e.g. a different classification model or the same model with a different set of features, as described in the following section.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 124,
"text": "Figure 4(b)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dealing with plurality and negation",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Previous work has shown that the lexical item of quantifiers and syntactic clues (often extracted from phrase structure trees) are good at predicting quantifier scoping. Srinivasan and Yates (2009) use the semantics of the head noun in a quantified NP to predict the scoping. MA11 also find the lexical item of the head noun to be a good predictor. In this paper, we introduce a new set of syntactic features which we found very informative: the \"type\" dependency features of de Marneffe et al. (2006) . Adopting this new set of features, we outperform MA11's system by a large margin. Another point to mention here is that the features that are predictive of the relative scope of quantifiers are not necessarily as helpful when determining the scope of negation and vice versa. Therefore we do not use exactly the same set of features when one of the scopal terms in the pair 11 is a negation, although most of the features are quite similar.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 197,
"text": "Srinivasan and Yates (2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 479,
"end": 501,
"text": "Marneffe et al. (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Feature selection",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "We first describe the set of features we have adopted when both scopal terms in a pair are NPchunks. We have organized the features into different categories listed below. Individual NP-chunk features Following features are extracted for both NP chunks in a pair.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "NP chunks",
"sec_num": "3.3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 The part-of-speech (POS) tag of the head of chunk \u2022 The lexical item of the head noun \u2022 The lexical item of the determiner/quantifier \u2022 The lexical item of the pre-determiner \u2022 Does the chunk contain a constant (e.g. \"do\", 'x')?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "NP chunks",
"sec_num": "3.3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Is the NP-chunk a plural?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "NP chunks",
"sec_num": "3.3.1"
},
{
"text": "Remember that every plural chunk i introduces two nodes in the DAG, ic and id. Both nodes are introduced by the same chunk i, therefore they use the same set of features. The only exception is a single additional binary feature for plural NP chunks, which determines whether the given node refers to the implicit universal of the plural (i.e. id) or to the collection itself (i.e. ic).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implicit universal of a plural",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Does this node refer to an implicit universal?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implicit universal of a plural",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As mentioned above, we have used two sets of syntactic features. The first is motivated by HS03's work and is based on the constituency (i.e. phrase structure) tree T of the sentence. Since our model is based on pairwise comparison, the following features are defined for each pair of chunks. In the following, by chunk we mean the deepest phrase-level node in T dominating all the words in the chunk. If the constituency tree is correct, this node is usually an NP node. Also, P refers to the undirected path in T connecting the two chunks.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Syntactic features -phrase structure tree",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Syntactic category of the deepest common ancestor \u2022 Does 1st/2nd chunk C-command 2nd/1st one? \u2022 Length of the path P \u2022 Syntactic categories of nodes on P \u2022 Is there a conjoined node on P ?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Syntactic features -phrase structure tree",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 List of punctuation marks dominated by nodes on P",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Syntactic features -phrase structure tree",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Although regular \"untyped\" dependency relations do not seem to help our QSD system in the presence of phrase-structure trees, we found the col-lapsed typed dependencies (de Marneffe and Manning, 2008) very helpful, even when used on top of the phrase-structure features. Below is the list of features we extract from the collapsed typed dependency tree T d of each sentence. In the following, by noun we mean the node in T d which corresponds to the head of the chunk. The choice of the word noun, however, may be sloppy, as the head of an NP chunk may not be a noun.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Syntactic features -dependency tree",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Does 1st/2nd noun dominate 2nd/1st noun?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Syntactic features -dependency tree",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Does 1st/2nd noun immediately dominate 2nd/1st? \u2022 Type of incoming dependency relation of each noun \u2022 Syntactic category of the deepest common ancestor \u2022 Lexical item of the deepest common ancestor \u2022 Length of the undirected path between the two",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Syntactic features -dependency tree",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "There are no sentences in our corpus with more than one negation. Therefore, for every pair of nodes with one negation, the other node must refer to an NP chunk. We use the following wordlevel, phrase-structure, and dependency features for these pairs.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Negations",
"sec_num": "3.3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Lexical item of the determiner for the NP chunk \u2022 Does the NP chunk contain a constant?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Negations",
"sec_num": "3.3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Is the NP chunk a plural?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Negations",
"sec_num": "3.3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 If so, does this node refer to its implicit universal?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Negations",
"sec_num": "3.3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Does the negation C-command the NP chunk in T ?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Negations",
"sec_num": "3.3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Does the NP chunk C-command the negation in T ?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Negations",
"sec_num": "3.3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 What is the POS of the parent p of negation in T ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 50,
"text": "T",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Negations",
"sec_num": "3.3.2"
},
{
"text": "QuanText contains 500 sentences with a total of 1750 chunks, that is 3.5 chunks/sentence on average. Of those, 1700 chunks are NP chunks. The rest are scopal operators, mainly negation. Of all the NP chunks, 320 (more than 18%) are plural, each introducing an implicit universal, that is, an additional node in the DAG. Since we feed each pair of elements to the classifiers independently, each (unordered) pair introduces one sample. Therefore, a sentence with n scopal elements creates C(n, 2) = n(n \u2212 1)/2 samples for classification. When all the elements are taken into account, 12 the total number of samples in the corpus will be:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "i C(n i , 2) \u2248 4500",
"eq_num": "(9)"
}
],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Where n i is the number of scopal terms introduced by sentence i. Out of the 4500 samples, around 1800 involve at least one implicit universal (i.e., id), but only 120 samples contain a negation. We evaluate the performance of the system for implicit universals and negation both separately and in the context of full scope disambiguation. We split the corpus at random into three sets of 50, 100, and 350 sentences, as development, test, and train sets respectively. 13 To extract part-of-speech tags, phrase structure trees, and typed dependencies, we use the Stanford parser (Klein and Manning, 2003; de Marneffe et al., 2006) on both train and test sets. Since we are using SVM, we have passed the confidence levels through a softmax function to convert them into probabilities P \u03bb u,v before applying the algorithm of Section 3. We take MA11's system as the baseline. However, in order to have a fair comparison, we have used the output of the Stanford parser to automatically generate the same features that MA11 have hand-annotated. 14 In order to run the baseline system on implicit universals, we take the feature vector of a plural NP and add a feature to indicate that this feature vector represents the implicit universal of the corresponding chunk. Similarly, for negation we add a feature to show that the chunk represents a negation. As shown in Section 3.3.2, we have used a more compact set of features for negations. Once again, in order to have a fair comparison, we apply a similar modification to the baseline system. We also use the exact same classifier as used in MA11. 15 Figure 5 (a) compares the performance of our model, which we refer to as RPC-SVM-13, with the baseline system, but only on explicit NP chunks. 16 The goal for running this experiment has been to compare the performance of our model to the baseline systoken, as described by Manshadi et al. (2012) . In this work, we have only considered the token entity introduced by those nouns and have ignored the type entity.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 468,
"end": 470,
"text": "13",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 578,
"end": 603,
"text": "(Klein and Manning, 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 604,
"end": 629,
"text": "de Marneffe et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 1594,
"end": 1596,
"text": "15",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1740,
"end": 1742,
"text": "16",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1871,
"end": 1893,
"text": "Manshadi et al. (2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1597,
"end": 1605,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": "FIGREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "13 Since the percentage of sentences with negation is small, we made sure that those sentences are distributed uniformly between three sets. 14 MA11's features are similar to part-of-speech tags and untyped dependency relations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "15 SV M M ulticlass from SVM-light (Joachims, 1999) . 16 In all experiments, we ignore NP conjunctions. Previous work treats a conjunction of NPs as separate NPs. However, similar to plurals, NP conjunctions (disjunctions) introduce an extra scopal element: a universal (existential). We are working on an annotation scheme for NP conjunctions, so we have left this for after the annotations become available. tem on the task that it was actually defined to perform (that is scoping only explicit NP chunks).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 51,
"text": "(Joachims, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 56,
"text": "16",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "As seen in this table, by incorporating a richer set of features and a better learning algorithm, our model outperforms the baseline by almost 15%. The measure A in these figures shows sentencebased accuracy. A sentence counts as correct iff every pair of scopal elements has been labeled correctly. Therefore A is a tough measure. Furthermore, it is sensitive to the length of the sentence. Following MA11, we have computed another sentence-based accuracy measure, AR. In computing AR, a sentence counts as correct iff all the outscoping relations have been recovered correctly -in other words, iff R = 100%, regardless of the value of P. AR may be more practically meaningful, because if in the correct scoping of the sentence there is no outscoping between two elements, inserting one does not affect the interpretation of the sentence. In other words, precision is less important for QSD in practice. Figure 5(b) gives the performance of the overall model when all the elements including the implicit universals and the negations are taken into account. That the F-score of our model for the second experiment is 0.042 higher than F-score for the first indicates that scoping implicit universals and/or negations must be easier than scoping explicit NP chunks. In order to find how much one or both of the two elements contribute to this gain, we have run two more experiments, scoping only the pairs with at least one implicit universal and pairs with one negation, respectively. Figure 6 reports the results. As seen, the contribution in boosting the overall performance comes from the implicit universals while negations, in fact, lower the performance. The performance for pairs with implicit universal is higher because universals, in general, are easier to scope, even for the human annotators. 17 There are several reasons for poor performance with negations as well. First, the number of negations in the corpus is small, therefore the data is very sparse. Second, the RPC model does not work well for negations. Scoping a negation relative to an NP chunk, with which it has a long distance dependency, often depends on the scope of the elements in between. Third, scoping negation usually requires a deep semantic analysis. In order to see how well our approximation algorithm is working, similar to the approach of Chambers and Jurafsky (2008) , we tried an ILP solver 18 for DAGs with at most 8 nodes to find the optimum solution, but we found the difference insignificant. In fact, the approximation algorithm finds the optimum solution in all but one case. 19",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 2329,
"end": 2357,
"text": "Chambers and Jurafsky (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 905,
"end": 916,
"text": "Figure 5(b)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF4"
},
{
"start": 1485,
"end": 1493,
"text": "Figure 6",
"ref_id": "FIGREF6"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Since automatic QSD is in general challenging, traditionally quantifier scoping is left underspecified in deep linguistic processing systems (Alshawi and Crouch, 1992; Bos, 1996; Copestake et al., 2001 ). Some efforts have been made to move underspecification frameworks towards weighted constraint-based graphs in order to produce the most preferred reading (Koller et al., 2008) , but the source of these types of constraint are often discourse, pragmatics, world knowledge, etc., and hence, they are hard to obtain automatically. In or-der to evade scope disambiguation, yet be able to perform entailment, Koller and Thater (2010) propose an algorithm to calculate the weakest readings 20 from a scope-underspecified representation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 141,
"end": 167,
"text": "(Alshawi and Crouch, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 178,
"text": "Bos, 1996;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 201,
"text": "Copestake et al., 2001",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 380,
"text": "(Koller et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 633,
"text": "Koller and Thater (2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related work",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Early efforts on automatic QSD (Moran, 1988; Hurum, 1988) were based on heuristics, manually formed into rules with manually assigned weights for resolving conflicts. To the best of our knowledge, there have been four major efforts on statistical QSD for English: Higgins and Sadock (2003) , Galen and MacCartney (2004) , Srinivasan and Yates (2009) , and Manshadi and Allen (2011a). The first three only scope two scopal terms in a sentence, where the scopal term is an NP with an explicit quantification. MA11 is the first to scope any number of NPs in a sentence with no restriction on the type of quantification. Besides ignoring negation and implicit universals, their system has some other limitations too. First, the learning model is not theoretically justified. Second, handannotated features (e.g. dependency relations) are used on both the train and the test data.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 44,
"text": "(Moran, 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 57,
"text": "Hurum, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 289,
"text": "Higgins and Sadock (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 292,
"end": 319,
"text": "Galen and MacCartney (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 349,
"text": "Srinivasan and Yates (2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related work",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We develop the first statistical QSD model addressing the interaction of quantifiers with negation and the implicit universal of plurals, defining a baseline for this task on QuanText data (Manshadi et al., 2012) . In addition, our work improves upon Manshadi and Allen (2011a)'s work by (approximately) optimizing a well justified criterion, by using automatically generated features instead of hand-annotated dependencies, and by boosting the performance by a large margin with the help of a rich feature vector.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 212,
"text": "(Manshadi et al., 2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary and future work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "This work can be improved in many directions, among which are scoping more elements such as other scopal operators and implicit entities, deploying more complex learning models, and developing models which require less supervision.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Summary and future work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "For example, Liang et al. (2011) in their state-of-the-art statistical semantic parser within the domain of natural language queries to databases, explicitly devise quantifier scoping in the semantic model.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Although plurals carry different types of quantification(Herbelot and Copestake, 2010), almost always there exists an implicit universal. The importance of scoping this universal, however, may vary based on the type of quantification.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "G is transitive iff (u, v), (v, w) \u2208 G =\u21d2 (u, w) \u2208 G.6 E.g., the left-to-right order of the corresponding chunks in the sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Since our model is based on pairwise comparison, every sample is in fact a pair of nodes (u, v) of the DAG.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Here by all elements we mean explicit chunks and the implicit universals. QuanText labels some other (implicit) elements, which we have not been handled in this work. In particular, some nouns introduce two entities: a type and a",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Trivially, we have taken the relation outscoping ic > id for granted and not counted it towards higher performance.18 lpsolve: http://sourceforge.net/projects/lpsolve 19 To find the gain that can be obtained with gold-standard parses, we used MA11's system with their hand-annotated and the equivalent automatically generated features. The former boost the performance by 0.04. Incidentally, HS03 lose almost 0.04 when switching to automatically generated parses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "We need to thank William de Beaumont and Jonathan Gordon for their comments on the paper and Omid Bakhshandeh for his assistance. This work was supported in part by NSF grant 1012205, and ONR grant N000141110417. 20 Those which can be entailed from other readings but do not entail any other reading",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgement",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Monotonic semantic interpretation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hiyan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Alshawi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Crouch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "32--39",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hiyan Alshawi and Richard Crouch. 1992. Monotonic semantic interpretation. In Proceedings of Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics, pages 32-39.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Predicate logic unplugged",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Johan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bos",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "133--143",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johan Bos. 1996. Predicate logic unplugged. In Pro- ceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 133-143.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Jointly combining implicit constraints improves temporal ordering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nathanael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chambers",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP '08",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "698--706",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nathanael Chambers and Dan Jurafsky. 2008. Jointly combining implicit constraints improves temporal ordering. In Proceedings of the Conference on Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP '08, pages 698-706, Stroudsburg, PA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Learning to order things",
"authors": [
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Cohen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Schapire",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yoram",
"middle": [],
"last": "Singer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research",
"volume": "10",
"issue": "",
"pages": "243--270",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "William W. Cohen, Robert E. Schapire, and Yoram Singer. 1999. Learning to order things. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 10:243-270.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "An algebra for semantic construction in constraint-based grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ann",
"middle": [],
"last": "Copestake",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alex",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lascarides",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Flickinger",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of Association for Computational Linguistics '01",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "140--147",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ann Copestake, Alex Lascarides, and Dan Flickinger. 2001. An algebra for semantic construction in constraint-based grammars. In Proceedings of As- sociation for Computational Linguistics '01, pages 140-147.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "The Stanford typed dependencies representation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marie-Catherine",
"middle": [],
"last": "De Marneffe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Coling 2008: Proceedings of the workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation, CrossParser '08",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--8",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marie-Catherine de Marneffe and Christopher D. Man- ning. 2008. The Stanford typed dependencies rep- resentation. In Coling 2008: Proceedings of the workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation, CrossParser '08, pages 1-8.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure trees",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marie-Catherine",
"middle": [],
"last": "De Marneffe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bill",
"middle": [],
"last": "Maccartney",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation '12",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Bill MacCartney, and Christopher D. Manning. 2006. Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure trees. In Proceedings of International Conference on Lan- guage Resources and Evaluation '12.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Pairwise preference learning and ranking",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Johannes",
"middle": [],
"last": "Furnkranz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eyke",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hullermeier",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Machine Learning",
"volume": "2837",
"issue": "",
"pages": "145--156",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johannes Furnkranz and Eyke Hullermeier. 2003. Pairwise preference learning and ranking. In Pro- ceedings of the 14th European Conference on Ma- chine Learning, volume 2837, pages 145-156.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Statistical resolution of scope ambiguity in natural language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Galen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bill",
"middle": [],
"last": "Maccartney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Andrew Galen and Bill MacCartney. 2004. Statistical resolution of scope ambiguity in natural language. http://nlp.stanford.edu/nlkr/scoper.pdf.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Plurality and Quantification. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fritz",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hamm",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Edward",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hinrichs",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fritz Hamm and Edward W. Hinrichs. 2010. Plurality and Quantification. Studies in Linguistics and Phi- losophy. Springer.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Annotating underquantification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Aurelie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Herbelot",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ann",
"middle": [],
"last": "Copestake",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop, LAW IV '10",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "73--81",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aurelie Herbelot and Ann Copestake. 2010. Anno- tating underquantification. In Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop, LAW IV '10, pages 73-81.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "A machine learning approach to modeling scope preferences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Derrick",
"middle": [],
"last": "Higgins",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jerrold",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Sadock",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "29",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "73--96",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Derrick Higgins and Jerrold M. Sadock. 2003. A ma- chine learning approach to modeling scope prefer- ences. Computational Linguistics, 29(1):73-96.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Label ranking by learning pairwise preferences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Eyke",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hullermeier",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Johannes",
"middle": [],
"last": "Furnkranz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Weiwei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cheng",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Klaus",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brinker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "172",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1897--1916",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eyke Hullermeier, Johannes Furnkranz, Weiwei Cheng, and Klaus Brinker. 2008. Label ranking by learning pairwise preferences. Artificial Intelli- gence, 172(1617):1897 -1916.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Handling scope ambiguities in English",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sven",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hurum",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Proceedings of the second conference on Applied natural language processing, ANLC '88",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "58--65",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sven Hurum. 1988. Handling scope ambiguities in English. In Proceedings of the second conference on Applied natural language processing, ANLC '88, pages 58-65.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Making large-scale support vector machine learning practical",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Thorsten",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joachims",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Advances in kernel methods",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "169--184",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Thorsten Joachims. 1999. Making large-scale sup- port vector machine learning practical. In Bernhard Sch\u00f6lkopf, Christopher J. C. Burges, and Alexan- der J. Smola, editors, Advances in kernel methods, pages 169-184. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Accurate unlexicalized parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Christopher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "423--430",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dan Klein and Christopher D. Manning. 2003. Ac- curate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computa- tional Linguistics -Volume 1, ACL '03, pages 423- 430.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Computing weakest readings",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alexander",
"middle": [],
"last": "Koller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stefan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Thater",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 48th",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alexander Koller and Stefan Thater. 2010. Comput- ing weakest readings. In Proceedings of the 48th",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Regular tree grammars as a formalism for scope underspecification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alexander",
"middle": [],
"last": "Koller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michaela",
"middle": [],
"last": "Regneri",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stefan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Thater",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics and Human Language Technologies '08",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alexander Koller, Michaela Regneri, and Stefan Thater. 2008. Regular tree grammars as a formal- ism for scope underspecification. In Proceedings of Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics and Human Language Technologies '08.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Events and plurality",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Landmann",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fred Landmann. 2000. Events and plurality. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Learning dependency-based compositional semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Percy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [
"I"
],
"last": "Jordan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "Proceedings of Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Percy Liang, Michael I. Jordan, and Dan Klein. 2011. Learning dependency-based compositional seman- tics. In Proceedings of Association for Computa- tional Linguistics (ACL).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Unrestricted quantifier scope disambiguation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mehdi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manshadi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Allen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "Proceedings of Association for Computational Linguistics '11, Workshop on Graph-based Methods for NLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mehdi Manshadi and James Allen. 2011a. Unre- stricted quantifier scope disambiguation. In Pro- ceedings of Association for Computational Linguis- tics '11, Workshop on Graph-based Methods for NLP (TextGraph-6).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "A corpus of scope-disambiguated English text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mehdi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manshadi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Allen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mary",
"middle": [],
"last": "Swift",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "Proceedings of Association for Computational Linguistics and Human Language Technologies '11: short papers",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "141--146",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mehdi Manshadi, James Allen, and Mary Swift. 2011b. A corpus of scope-disambiguated English text. In Proceedings of Association for Computa- tional Linguistics and Human Language Technolo- gies '11: short papers, pages 141-146.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "An annotation scheme for quantifier scope disambiguation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mehdi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manshadi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Allen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mary",
"middle": [],
"last": "Swift",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "Proceedings of International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation '12",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mehdi Manshadi, James Allen, and Mary Swift. 2012. An annotation scheme for quantifier scope disam- biguation. In Proceedings of International Confer- ence on Language Resources and Evaluation '12.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Quantifier scoping in the SRI core language engine",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Douglas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moran",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 26th",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Douglas Moran. 1988. Quantifier scoping in the SRI core language engine. In Proceedings of the 26th",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Text Chunking Using Transformation-Based Learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lance",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ramshaw",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mitch",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marcus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "82--94",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lance Ramshaw and Mitch Marcus. 1995. Text Chunking Using Transformation-Based Learning. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Very Large Corpora, pages 82-94, Somerset, New Jersey.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Quantifier scope disambiguation using extracted pragmatic knowledge: preliminary results",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Prakash",
"middle": [],
"last": "Srinivasan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alexander",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yates",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "Proceedings of EMNLP '09",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Prakash Srinivasan and Alexander Yates. 2009. Quan- tifier scope disambiguation using extracted prag- matic knowledge: preliminary results. In Proceed- ings of EMNLP '09.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "DAGs for scopings in (6) and (8) 7. Extract [1/ every word] in [2/ file \"1.txt\"], which starts with [3/ a capital letter], but does [N1/ not] end with [4/ a capital letter].",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF3": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "Scoping all elements (including id and N i)",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF4": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "Performance on QuanText data",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF6": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"text": "Implicit universals and negations",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"TABREF1": {
"content": "<table/>",
"num": null,
"text": "Does p dominate the noun in T d ? \u2022 Does the noun dominate p in T d ? \u2022 Does p immediately dominate the noun in T d ? \u2022 If so, what is the type of the dependency? \u2022 Does the noun immediately dominate p in T d ? \u2022 If so, what is the type of the dependency?\u2022 Length of the undirected path between the two in T d",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
}
}
}
} |