1 / 57

Finding homogenious word sets Towards a dissertation in NLP

Finding homogenious word sets Towards a dissertation in NLP. Chris Biemann NLP Department, University of Leipzig biem@informatik.uni-leipzig.de Universitetet i Oslo, 12/10/2005. Outline. Preliminaries : Co-occurrences Unsupervized methods - Language Seperation - POS tagging

clara
Télécharger la présentation

Finding homogenious word sets Towards a dissertation in NLP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Finding homogenious word setsTowards a dissertation in NLP Chris Biemann NLP Department, University of Leipzig biem@informatik.uni-leipzig.de Universitetet i Oslo, 12/10/2005

  2. Outline • Preliminaries: Co-occurrences • Unsupervized methods- Language Seperation- POS tagging • Weakly Supervized Methods- gazetteer building for NER- semantic lexicon extension- extension of lexical-semantic word nets

  3. Statistical Co-occurrences • occurrence of two or more words within a well-defined unit of information (sentence, nearest neighbors, document, window ...) • Significant Co-occurrences reflect relations between words • Significance Measure (log-likelihood):- k is the number of sentences containing a and b together- ab is (number of sentences with a)*(number of sentences with b)- n is total number of sentences in corpus

  4. Unsupervized methods • Unsupervized means: no training data, there is nothing like a „training set“ • This means: the discovery and usage of any structure in language must be entirely algorithmical • Unsupervized means knowledge-free: No prior knowledge allowed. • Famous unsupervized method: clustering. Advantages: • language-independent • no need to build manual ressources (cheap) • Robust Disadvantages: • Labeling problem • Unaware of errors • Often not traceable • difficult to interpret / evaluate

  5. Unsupervized Language Discrimination Supervized Language Identification: • needs training • Operates on letter n-grams or common words as features • Works almost error-free for texts from 500 letters on Drawbacks: • Does not work for previously unknown languages • Danger of misclassifying instead of reporting „unknown“ Example: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/TextCat/Demo • “xx xxx x xxx …” classified as Nepali • “öö ö öö ööö …” classified as Persian Unsupervized Language Discrimination: Task: Given a mixed-language corpus, split it into the different languages. Biemann, C., Teresniak, S. (2005): Disentangling from Babylonian Confusion - Unsupervized Language Identification, Proceedings of CICLing-2005, Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, Mexico City, Mexico and Springer LNCS 3406, pp. 762-773

  6. Co-occurrence Graphs • The entirety of all significant co-occurrences is a co-occurrence graph G(V,E) withV: Vertices = WordsE: Edges (v1, v2, s) with v1, v2 words, s significance value. • Co-occurrence graph is- weighted- undirected • Small-world-property

  7. Chinese Whispers - Motivation • (small-world) graphs consist of regions with a high clustering coefficient and hubs that connect those regions • The nodes in cluster regions should be assigned the same label per region • Every node gets a label and whispers it to its neighbouring nodes. A node changes to a label if most of its neighbours whisper this label – or it invents a new one • Under assumption of semantic closeness when being strongly connected there should emerge motivated clusters

  8. Chinese Whispers Algorithm D L2 B L4 5 8 A L1 deg=1 deg=2 E L3 3 C L3 6 deg=4 deg=3 deg=5 Assign different labels to every node in the graph; For iteration i from 1 to total_iterations { mutation_rate= 1/(i^2); For each word w in the graph { new_label of w = highest ranked label in neighbourhood of w; with probability mutation_rate: new_label of w = new class label; } labels = new_labels; } • graph clustering algorithm • linear time in the number of nodes • random mutation can be omitted but showed better results for small graphs

  9. Chinese Whispers on 7 Languages

  10. Chinese Whispers on 7 languages

  11. Assigning languages to sentences • Use word-based language identification tool • Largest clusters form word lists for different languages • A sentence is assigned a cluster label if - it contains at least 2 words from the cluster and - not more words from another cluster Questions for Evaluation: • up to what number of languages is that possible ? • How much can the corpus be biased ?

  12. Evaluation Mix of seven languages, equal number of sentences: • Languages used: Dutch, Estonian, English, French, German, Icelandic and Italian • At least 100 sentences per language are necessary for consistent clusters Two languages with strong bias: • At least 500 sentences out of 100‘000 needed to find the smaller language • Tested on English in Estonian, Dutch in German, French in Italian

  13. Common mistakes • Unclassified: - mostly enumerations of sport teams - very short sentences, e.g. headlines- legal act ciphers in estonian case, e.g.10.12.96 jõust.01.01.97 - RT I 1996 , 89 , 1590 • Misclassified: mixed-language-sentences, likeFrench: Frönsku orðin "cinéma vérité" þýða "kvikmyndasannleikur“English: Die Beatles mit"All you need is love".

  14. Induction of POS Information Given: Unstructured monolingual text corpus Goal: Induction of POS Tags for many (all) words.Result is a list of words with the corresponding tag. Application on text (the actual POS tagging) is another task. Motivation: • POS information is a processing step in a variety of NLP applications such as parsing, IE, indexing • POS taggers need a considerable amount of hand-tagged training data which is expensive and only available for major languages • Even for major languages, POS taggers are suited for well-formed texts and do not cope well with domain-dependent issues as being found e.g. in eMail or spoken corpora

  15. Literature Overview [Schütze 93, Schütze 95, Clark 00, Freitag 04] show a similar architecture on high level, but differ in details. Steps to achieve word classes: • Calculation of global contexts using a window of 1-2 words to left and right and the most frequent 150-250 words as features • Clustering of these contexts gives word classes

  16. Method Description • Contexts: the most frequent N (100, 200, 300) words are used for 4 x N context vectors for the most frequent 10‘000 words in the corpus • Cosine similarity between all pairs of the 10‘000 top words is calculated • Transformation to a graph: Draw an edge with weight1/ (1-cos(x,y)) between x and y, if cos(x,y) is above some threshold • Chinese Whispers (CW) on graph results in word class clusters Differences to prev. methods: • CW Clustering does not need number of classes as input • No dimensionality reduction techniques as SVD • Explicit threshold for similarity

  17. Toy Example (1) Corpus fragments: ... _KOM_ sagte der Sprecher bei der Sitzung _ESENT_ ... _KOM_ rief der Vorsitzende in der Sitzung _ESENT_ ... _KOM_ warf in die Tasche aus der Ecke _ESENT_ Features: der(1), die(2), bei(3), in(4), _ESENT_(5), _KOM_(6) Position: -2 -1 +1 +2

  18. Toy Example (2) Here, CW cuts graph in 2 partitions: nouns and verbs. 15 17 30 15 15 1000 12 15 17 17 17 17 30

  19. Norwegian – Labels

  20. corpus size and features: CP vs. coverage

  21. Example: time words in Norwegian

  22. Cluster sizes and clusters per word class • When optimizing CP, words of the same word class tend to end up in several clusters, especially for open word classes • Open word classes are the most interesting word classes for further processing steps like IE, relation learning.. • Cluster sizes are Zipf-distributed, there are always many small clusters • Hierarchical CW could be used to lower the number of clusters while staying in POS distinctions

  23. Outlook: Constructing a POS tagger • Using word clusters to initialize a POS tagger • Evaluation based on types instead of tokens Open questions: • Context window backoff model for unknown words • Leave out or take in unclustered high frequency words (as singletons) ? • Can the many classes per POS be unified using tagger behaviour?

  24. Weakly Supervized Methods Weakly supervized means: • Very little training data and prior knowledge • Learning from labeled and unlabeled data • bootstrapping methods Advantages: • Very little input: still cheap • No labeling problem • Easier to evaluate Disadvantages: • Subject to error propagation • Stopping criterion difficult to define

  25. Bootstrapping of lexical items For learning by bootstrapping, two things are needed: A start set of some known items with classes and a rule set that states, how more information can be obtained using known items. Generic bootstrapping algorithm:  Knowledge=0 New=Start_set While New>0 Knowledge+=New New=0 New=find new items using Knowledge and Rule_set known items # items Phase of growth Phase of exhaustion new items iteration

  26. Benefits and Bothers of Bootstrapping Pro: • Only small start sets (seeds) are needed, those can be rapidly prepared • Process needs no further supervision (weakly supervized learning) Cons: • Danger of Error Propagation • When to stop is unclear

  27. Patterns for word classes and their relations Examples for word classes in text: • Islands: „On the island ofCuba ...“, „carribbean island of Trinidad“ • Companies: „the ACMELtd. Incorporated“ • Verbs of utterance: „she said: <something>“ • Person names: John W. Smith, EllenMeyer Observation: • Words belonging to the same class can be interchanged without hurting the relation • Sometimes no trigger words

  28. Problem definition Be Ri: A1 ... An n-ary relations over word sets A1..An. Given: • Some elements of sets A1..An • Large corpus Needed: • Sets A1..An • (a1..an)Ri Necessary: rules for classification

  29. Pattern Matching Rules • Annotate Text with known items and flat features (tagging is nice, but Tagsets of 4 tags will do for English)" ... said Jonas Berger , who .. "... LC UC LN PM LC .. • Use rules likeUC* LN -> FN FN UC* -> LNto classify "Jonas" as first name • Rules of this kind are weak hypotheses because they sometimes misclassify, e.g. in “As Berger turned over, ...“ “... tickets at Agency Berger, Munich."  Rules alone are not sufficient.

  30. Pendulum-Algorithm: Bootstrapping with verification Initialize Knowledge, Rules, New_items While New_items>0: Last_new_items=New_items New_items=0 for all Last_new_items i fetch text containing i from corpus find candidates in text by using Knowledge and Rules verify candidate k: fetch text containing k rate k on basis of text New_items+=candidates with high ratings Knowledge+=New_items Search step Verification step Quasthoff, U.; Biemann, Chr.; Wolff, Chr. : Named entity learning and verification: EM in large corpora. In: Proceedings of CoNLL-2002 , The Sixth Workshop on Computational Language Learning, 31 August and 1 September 2002 in association with Coling 2002 in Taipei, Taiwan Biemann, Chr.; Böhm, K.; Quasthoff; U.; Wolff, Chr.: Automatic Discovery and Aggregation of Compound Names for the use in Knowledge Representations. Proc: I-KNOW ’03, International Conference on Knowledge Management, Graz and Journal of Universal Computer Science (JUCS), Volume 9, Number 6, Pp. 530-541, Juni 2003

  31. Explanations on the Pendulum • The same rules are used for both search and verification of candidates • Previously known and previously learned items are used for both search and verification of candidates • A word is tonly taken into knowledge, if it occurs • multiple times and • at high rate in the corpus with its classification.

  32. Example: island names and island specifiers

  33. Results – German Person Names Items per iteration step Total items New items step Start Set and prior knowledge:9 first names, 10 last names, 15 rules, 12 reg-exps for titles Corpus:Projekt Deutscher Wortschatz, 36 Mio. Sentences Found: 42000 items, of which74% LN Prec>99%, 15% FN Prec>80% 11% TIT Prec>99%

  34. Extending a semantic lexiconusing co-occurrences and HaGenLex sort (hierarchy) semantic features semantic classes Size for nouns: about 13 000. 50 semantic classes for nouns are constructed from allowed combinations of: • 16 semantic features (binary), e.g. HUMAN+, ARTIFICIAL- • 17 ontologic sorts, e.g. concrete, abstract-situation... WORD SEMANTIC CLASS Aggressivität nonment-dyn-abs-situation Agonie nonment-stat-abs-situation Agrarprodukt nat-discrete Ägypter human-object Ahn human-object Ahndung nonment-dyn-abs-situation Ähnlichkeit relation Airbag nonax-mov-art-discrete Airbus mov-nonanimate-con-potag Airport art-con-geogr Ajatollah human-object Akademiker human-object Akademisierung nonment-dyn-abs-situation ... ...

  35. Underlying Assumptions • Harris 1968: Distributional Hypothesissemantic similarity is a function over global contexts of words. The more similar the contexts, the more similar the words • Projected on nouns and adjectives: nouns of similar semantic classes are modified through similar adjectives

  36. Neighbouring Co-occurrences and Profiles • Neighbouring co-occurrence: a pair of words that occur next to each other more often than to be expected under assumption of statistical independence. • The neighbouring co-occurrence relation between adjectives as left neighbours and nouns as right neighbours approximates typical head-modifier structures • The set of adjectives that co-occur significantly often to the left of a noun is called ist adjective profile (analogous definition of noun profile for adjectives) • For experiments, I used the most recent German corpus of Projekt Deutscher Wortschatz, 500 million tokens

  37. Word transl. word adjektive / noun profile translations adjective / noun profile Example: neighbouring profiles book Buch neu, erschienen, erst, neuest, jüngst, gut, geschrieben, letzt, zweit, vorliegend, gleichnamig herausgegeben, nächst, dick, veröffentlicht, ... new, published, first, newest, most recent, recently, good, written, last, second, onhand, eponymous, next, thick, ... Käse cheese gerieben, überbacken, kleinkariert, fett, französisch, fettarm, löchrig, holländisch, handgemacht, grün, würzig, selbstgemacht, produziert, schimmelig, grated, baked over, small minded, fat, French, low-fat, holey, Dutch, hand-made, green, spicey, self-made, produced, moldy Camembert camembert gebacken, fettarm, reif baken, low-fat, ripe baked over überbacken Schweinesteak, Aubergine, Blumenkohl, Käse steak, aubergine, cauliflower, cheese brought down erlegt Tier, Wild, Reh, Stück, Beute, Großwild, Wildkatzen, Büffel, Rehbock, Beutetier, Wal, Hirsch, Hase, Grizzly, Wildschwein, Thier, Eber, Bär, Mücke, animal, game, deer, piece, prey, big game, wild cat, buffalo, roebuck, prey animal, whale, hart, bunny, grizzly, wild pig, boar, bear, ... ganz whole life, bundle, piece, population, kind, fortune, heart, army, anrsenal, village, country, ability, career, packet, chapter, quater, pack, decade ... Leben, Bündel, Stück, Volk, Wesen, Vermögen, Herz, Heer, Arsenal, Dorf, Land, Können, Berufsleben, Paket, Kapitel, Stadtviertel, Rudel, Jahrzehnt, ... amount: 160‘000 nouns, 23‘400 adjectives

  38. Mechanism of Inheritance Algorithm: Initialize adjective and noun profiles; Initialize the start set; As long as new nouns get classified { calculate class probabilities for each adjective; for all yet unclassified nouns n { Multiply class probabilities per class of modifying adjectives; Assign the class with highest probabilities to n; } } Which class is assigned to N4 in the next step? • Class probabilities per adjective: • count number of classes • normalize on total number of class wrt. noun classes • normalize to 1

  39. Experimental Data • 5133 nouns comply to minAdj=5, that means maximal recall=84.9% • In all experiments, 10-fold-cross validation was used

  40. Results: Global Classification • Classification was carried out directly on 50 semantic classes • Different measuring points correspond to parameters minAdj in {5,10,15,20}, maxClass in {2, 5, 50} • Results too poor for lexicon extension

  41. Combining Single Classifiers Architecture: binary classifiers for single features, then combinding the outcome. Parameter: minAdj=5, maxClass=2 ANIMAL +/- ANIMATE +/- Selection: compatible semantic classes that are minimal w.r.t hierarchy and unambiguous. ARTIF +/- AXIAL +/- result classorreject ... (16 features) ab +/- abs +/- ad +/- as +/- ... (17 sorts)

  42. Results: Single Semantic Features • for bias > 0.05 good to excellent precision • total precision: 93.8% (86.8% for feature +) • total recall: 70.7% (69.2% for feature +)

  43. Results: Ontologic Sorts • for bias > 0.10 good to excellent precision • total precision: 94.1% (89.5% for sort +) • total recall: 73.6% (69.6% for sort +)

  44. Results: Comb. Semantic Classes • no connection between amount of class and results visible • total precision: 82.3% • total recall: 32.8% • number of newly classified nouns: 8500 (minAdj=2: ~ 13‘000)

  45. Typical mistakes Pflanze (plant) animal-object instead of plant-object zart, fleischfressend, fressend, verändert, genmanipuliert, transgen, exotisch, selten, giftig, stinkend, wachsend... Nachwuchs (offspring)human-object instead of animal-object wissenschaftlich, qualifiziert, akademisch, eigen, talentiert, weiblich, hoffnungsvoll, geeignet, begabt, journalistisch... Café (café)art-con-geogr instead of nonmov-art-discrete(cf. Restaurant) Wiener, klein, türkisch, kurdisch, romanisch, cyber, philosophisch, besucht, traditionsreich, schnieke, gutbesucht, ... Neger (negro)animal-object instead of human-object weiß, dreckig, gefangen, faul, alt, schwarz, nackt, lieb, gut, brav but: Skinhead (skinhead)human-object (ok) {16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,30}ährig, gleichaltrig, zusammengeprügelt, rechtsradikal, brutal In most cases the wrong class is semantically close. Evaluation metrics did not account for that. Biemann, C., Osswald, R. (2005): Automatic Extension of Feature-based Semantic Lexicons via Contextual Attributes, Proceedings of 29th annual meeting of Gfkl, Magdeburg 2005

  46. Extending CoreNet – Korean WordNet CoreNet Characteristics • Rather large groups of words per concept as opposed to fine-grained WordNet structure • Same concept hierarchy is used for all word classes Size of KAIST Korean corpus: • 38 Million tokens, • 2.3 Million sentences, • 3.8 Million types

  47. Pendulum-Algorithm on co-occurrences LastLearned=StartSet; Knowledge=StartSet; NewLearned=0; while (LastLearned>0) { for all i in LastLearned { Candidates=getCooccurrences(i); for all c in Candidates { VerifySet=getCooccurrences(c); if |VerifySet  Knowledge| >threshhold { NewLearned+=c; Knowledge+=c; } } } LastLearned=NewLearned; NewLearned=0; } Search step Verification step

  48. Sample step Seed: Search with yields (amongst others): Verifiy:

  49. Evaluation • Selection of concepts performed by a non-Korean speaker • Evaluation performed manually, only new words counted • Heuristics for avoiding result set infection- iteratively lower threshold for verification from 8 downto 3 until the result set is too large- take lowest threshold for result set with reasonable size (not exceeding start set) • Typical run needed 3-7 iterations to converge Biemann, C., Shin, S.-I., Choi, K.-S. (2004): "Semiautomatic Externsion of CoreNet using a Bootstrapping Mechanism on Corpus-based Co-occurrences", Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING04) Genf, Switzerland

  50. CoreNet ID Name of Concept Size # new # ok precision Results 50 human good/bad 119 36 5 13.89% 111 human relation 274 3 2 66.67% 113 partner / co-worker 123 23 8 34.78% 114 partner / member 71 5 3 60.00% 181 human ability 213 7 2 28.57% 430 store 128 12 11 91.67% 471 land, area 260 10 2 20.00% 548 insect, bug 75 43 6 13.95% 552 part of animal 736 10 6 60.00% 553 head 139 7 4 57.14% 577 forehead 72 4 2 50.00% 590 legs and arms 86 7 3 42.86% 672 plant (vegetation) 461 30 15 50.00% 817 cloths 246 3439 34 231 18 87 52.94% 37.67% Sum: Not enough for automatic extension, but a good source for candidates

More Related