mapping between dependency structures and compositional
play

Mapping between Dependency Structures and Compositional Semantic - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Mapping between Dependency Structures and Compositional Semantic Representations LREC 2010 Max Jakob, Mark eta Lopatkov a, Valia Kordoni UFAL at Charles University in Prague,


  1. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Mapping between Dependency Structures and Compositional Semantic Representations LREC 2010 Max Jakob, Mark´ eta Lopatkov´ a, Valia Kordoni ´ UFAL at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI GmbH) Dept. of Computational Linguistics, Saarland University, Germany 1/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  2. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Motivation Research presented in the paper map PDT annotation �→ RMRS structures manually annotated corpora are valuable barrier: difference in formal descriptions → usage of a resource remains limited ⇒ precisely relate formalisms to overcome these limitations Benefits: flexibility, availability, RMRSs for Czech 2/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  3. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Prague Dependency Treebank 2.0 Czech newspaper and magazine articles theoretical backgr.: Functional Generative Description theory (Sgall et al. , 1986) 3 annotation layers “Byl by ˇ sel do lesa.” “He would have gone into the woods.” 3/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  4. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Input of the mapping (1) Tectogrammatical trees: t-ln94208-126-p2s4 root (Hajiˇ c et al. , 2006) highest level of honit enunc . abstraction PRED v sub-layers: structure and pes asi kočka dependencies ACT MOD PAT n.denot atom n.denot morphological “Pes asi hon´ ı koˇ cku.” categories “The dog probably coreferences chases a cat.” topic-focus articulation 4/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  5. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Input of the mapping (2) PDT Valency Dictionary: (Hajiˇ c et al. , 2003) separate data source from PDT comprises obligatory and optional valency modifications does not contain free modifications minout (to pass) ACT, PAT (the bullet passed/missed the victim) ACT (the holidays have passed) 5/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  6. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Output of the mapping (Robust) Minimal Recursion Semantics: (Copestake et al. , 2005; Copestake, 2007) flat, underspecified representation no semantic theory < [ l 0 , e 2] , { l 1: every q( x 1 , h 1 , h 2), l 2: white adj( x 1), l 2: cat n( x 1), l 3: probably adv( e 1 , h 3), l 4: eat v( e 2 [ tense : past ] , x 1 , x 2), l 5: a q( x 2 , h 4 , h 5), l 6: mouse n 1( x 2) } , { h 1 = q l 2, h 3 = q l 4, h 4 = q l 6 } > “Every white cat probably ate a mouse.” 6/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  7. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Mapping PDT �→ RMRS adapt theoretical background of PDT rule-based approach t-ln94208-126-p2s4 root < [ l 0 , a 1 , e 1], { l 1: a 1: honit v 1( e 1), l 2: a 2: pes n.denot( x 1), honit enunc . l 4: a 4: koˇ cka n.denot( x 2), PRED l 3: a 3: asi atom( e 2), v �→ l 1: a 5:MOD( e 1) } , { a 1:ACT( x 1), pes asi kočka a 1:PAT( x 2), ACT MOD PAT a 3:ARG1( h 1), n.denot atom n.denot a 5:ARG1( e 2) } , { h 1 = q l 1 } > 7/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  8. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion node-RMRS represents a subtree as RMRS honit PRED < [ l 3 , a 1 , e 1], { l 1: a 1: honit v 1( e 1), l 2: a 2: pes n.denot( x 1), l 3: a 3: koˇ cka n.denot( x 2), l 4: a 4: asi atom( e 2), l 1: a 5:MOD( e 1) } , { a 1:ACT( x 1), a 1:PAT( x 2), a 4:ARG1( h 1), a 5:ARG1( e 2) } , { h 1 = q l 1 } > ✟✟✟✟✟✟✟✟✟✟✟✟✟✟ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ pes asi koˇ cka ACT MOD PAT < [ l 2 , a 2 , x 1], < [ l 4 , a 4 , e 2], < [ l 3 , a 3 , x 2], { l 2: a 2: pes n.denot( x 1) } , { l 4: a 4: asi atom( e 2) } , { l 3: a 3: koˇ cka n.denot( x 2) } , { } , { a 4:ARG1( h 1) } , { } , { } > { } > { } > 8/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  9. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion node-RMRS Initialization < [ l 3 , a 3 , x 2], { l 3: a 3: koˇ cka n.denot( x 2 [ number : sg , gender : fem ] ), l 4: a 4:udef q( x 2) } , { a 4:RSTR( h 1), a 4:BODY( h 1) } , { h 1 = q l 3 } > relation name: lemma POS index variable features: morphological categor. set hook values introduce a quantifier for nominal objects 9/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  10. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion node-RMRS Composition valency modification add argument to governing lexical EP free modification add EP that relates lexical EPs coordination add a coordination EP add constraints, update hook build union of all involved sets 10/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  11. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Algorithm Sketch Input: tectogrammatical tree (, valency dictionary) Output: RMRS structure get node-RMRS(node) 1: initialize node-RMRS 2: for all relevant dependent nodes dep node-RMRS ← get node-RMRS (dep.) 3: treat dep node-RMRS 4: as a member of a coordination or as a valency modification or as a free modification merge dep node-RMRS with node-RMRS 5: 6: return node-RMRS 11/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  12. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Evaluation no manual checking ← corpus size & lack of sufficient Czech skills Structurally valid MRSs 1 must be a net (Flickinger et al. , 2005). 2 must have at least one configuration . Precision 40120/44725 89.70 % Recall 40120/49431 81.16 % (skipped 4706 trees: 9.52 %) 12/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  13. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Conclusion mapping of PDT dependency trees onto flat RMRS structures is feasible mapped : structure and dependencies, morphological categories, some grammatical coreferences future work : word order, quantifier representation, rest of grammatical coreference, textual coreference, topic-focus articulation Benefits: treebank data available in (R)MRS towards formalism independence compositional semantics structures for Czech 13/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

  14. Intro Source Target Mapping Evaluation Conclusion Paper Reference Max Jakob, Mark´ eta Lopatkov´ a, Valia Kordoni. Mapping between Dependency Structures and Compositional Semantic Representations. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2010) , Valletta, Malta. 14/14 Jakob, Lopatkov´ a, Kordoni Mapping between Dependencies & Compositional Semantics

Recommend


More recommend