Natural Language Questions for the Web of Data Mohamed Yahya 1, Klaus Berberich 1, Shady Elbassuoni 2 Maya Ramanath 3, Volker Tresp 4, Gerhard Weikum 1.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
YAGO: A Large Ontology from Wikipedia and WordNet Fabian M. Suchanek, Gjergji Kasneci, Gerhard Weikum Max-Planck-Institute for Computer Science, Saarbruecken,
Advertisements

1 Evaluation Rong Jin. 2 Evaluation  Evaluation is key to building effective and efficient search engines usually carried out in controlled experiments.
Gerhard Weikum Max Planck Institute for Informatics & Saarland University Semantic Search: from Names and Phrases to.
Date : 2013/05/27 Author : Anish Das Sarma, Lujun Fang, Nitin Gupta, Alon Halevy, Hongrae Lee, Fei Wu, Reynold Xin, Gong Yu Source : SIGMOD’12 Speaker.
Overview of the TAC2013 Knowledge Base Population Evaluation: English Slot Filling Mihai Surdeanu with a lot help from: Hoa Dang, Joe Ellis, Heng Ji, and.
Proceedings of the Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing-2007) Learning for Semantic Parsing Advisor: Hsin-His.
Probabilistic Latent-Factor Database Models Denis Krompaß 1, Xueyan Jiang 1,Maximilian Nickel 2 and Volker Tresp 1,3 1 Department of Computer Science.
Scott Wen-tau Yih (Microsoft Research) Joint work with Vahed Qazvinian (University of Michigan)
Evaluation.  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Types of Evaluation Might evaluate several aspects Evaluation generally comparative –System A vs.
NaLIX: A Generic Natural Language Search Environment for XML Data Presented by: Erik Mathisen 02/12/2008.
Evaluation.  Allan, Ballesteros, Croft, and/or Turtle Types of Evaluation Might evaluate several aspects Evaluation generally comparative –System A vs.
Enhance legal retrieval applications with an automatically induced knowledge base Ka Kan Lo.
Statistical Natural Language Processing. What is NLP?  Natural Language Processing (NLP), or Computational Linguistics, is concerned with theoretical.
Artificial Intelligence Research Centre Program Systems Institute Russian Academy of Science Pereslavl-Zalessky Russia.
10 December, 2013 Katrin Heinze, Bundesbank CEN/WS XBRL CWA1: DPM Meta model CWA1Page 1.
Making Pattern Queries Bounded in Big Graphs 11 Yang Cao 1,2 Wenfei Fan 1,2 Jinpeng Huai 2 Ruizhe Huang 1 1 University of Edinburgh 2 Beihang University.
Evaluating the Contribution of EuroWordNet and Word Sense Disambiguation to Cross-Language Information Retrieval Paul Clough 1 and Mark Stevenson 2 Department.
Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down? Semantic Orientation Applied to Unsupervised Classification on Reviews Peter D. Turney Institute for Information Technology National.
Querying RDF Data with Text Annotated Graphs Lushan Han, Tim Finin, Anupam Joshi and Doreen Cheng SSDBM’15 
Processing of large document collections Part 3 (Evaluation of text classifiers, applications of text categorization) Helena Ahonen-Myka Spring 2005.
Empirical Methods in Information Extraction Claire Cardie Appeared in AI Magazine, 18:4, Summarized by Seong-Bae Park.
C OLLECTIVE ANNOTATION OF WIKIPEDIA ENTITIES IN WEB TEXT - Presented by Avinash S Bharadwaj ( )
An Integrated Approach to Extracting Ontological Structures from Folksonomies Huairen Lin, Joseph Davis, Ying Zhou ESWC 2009 Hyewon Lim October 9 th, 2009.
1 Wikification CSE 6339 (Section 002) Abhijit Tendulkar.
DEANNA: Natural Language Questions for the Web of Data Mohamed Yahya † Klaus Berberich † Shady Elbassiousni * Maya Ramanath ‡ Volker Tresp # Gerhard Weikum.
Feature Matching Longin Jan Latecki. Matching example Observe that some features may be missing due to instability of feature detector, view change, or.
Reyyan Yeniterzi Weakly-Supervised Discovery of Named Entities Using Web Search Queries Marius Pasca Google CIKM 2007.
Ensemble Solutions for Link-Prediction in Knowledge Graphs
Interpreting Dictionary Definitions Dan Tecuci May 2002.
A Survey for Interspeech Xavier Anguera Information Retrieval-based Dynamic TimeWarping.
Presenter: Lung-Hao Lee ( 李龍豪 ) January 7, 309.
Dimitrios Skoutas Alkis Simitsis
Intelligent Database Systems Lab Presenter : YAN-SHOU SIE Authors Mohamed Ali Hadj Taieb *, Mohamed Ben Aouicha, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou KBS Computing.
1 Learning Sub-structures of Document Semantic Graphs for Document Summarization 1 Jure Leskovec, 1 Marko Grobelnik, 2 Natasa Milic-Frayling 1 Jozef Stefan.
LOD for the Rest of Us Tim Finin, Anupam Joshi, Varish Mulwad and Lushan Han University of Maryland, Baltimore County 15 March 2012
Q2Semantic: A Lightweight Keyword Interface to Semantic Search Haofen Wang 1, Kang Zhang 1, Qiaoling Liu 1, Thanh Tran 2, and Yong Yu 1 1 Apex Lab, Shanghai.
Natural Language Questions for the Web of Data Mohamed Yahya, Klaus Berberich, Gerhard Weikum Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Germany Shady Elbassuoni.
Graph-based Text Classification: Learn from Your Neighbors Ralitsa Angelova , Gerhard Weikum : Max Planck Institute for Informatics Stuhlsatzenhausweg.
Wikipedia as Sense Inventory to Improve Diversity in Web Search Results Celina SantamariaJulio GonzaloJavier Artiles nlp.uned.es UNED,c/Juan del Rosal,
Natural Language Questions for the Web of Data 1 Mohamed Yahya, Klaus Berberich, Gerhard Weikum Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Germany 2 Shady Elbassuoni.
Date : 2013/03/18 Author : Jeffrey Pound, Alexander K. Hudek, Ihab F. Ilyas, Grant Weddell Source : CIKM’12 Speaker : Er-Gang Liu Advisor : Prof. Jia-Ling.
Algorithmic Detection of Semantic Similarity WWW 2005.
Instance-based mapping between thesauri and folksonomies Christian Wartena Rogier Brussee Telematica Instituut.
PCI th Panhellenic Conference in Informatics Clustering Documents using the 3-Gram Graph Representation Model 3 / 10 / 2014.
Evgeniy Gabrilovich and Shaul Markovitch
Natural Language Questions for the Web of Data Mohamed Yahya, Klaus Berberich, Gerhard Weikum Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Germany Shady Elbassuoni.
Named Entity Disambiguation on an Ontology Enriched by Wikipedia Hien Thanh Nguyen 1, Tru Hoang Cao 2 1 Ton Duc Thang University, Vietnam 2 Ho Chi Minh.
1 NAGA: Searching and Ranking Knowledge Gjergji Kasneci Joint work with: Fabian M. Suchanek, Georgiana Ifrim, Maya Ramanath, and Gerhard Weikum.
A Classification-based Approach to Question Answering in Discussion Boards Liangjie Hong, Brian D. Davison Lehigh University (SIGIR ’ 09) Speaker: Cho,
UWMS Data Mining Workshop Content Analysis: Automated Summarizing Prof. Marti Hearst SIMS 202, Lecture 16.
Mining Dependency Relations for Query Expansion in Passage Retrieval Renxu Sun, Chai-Huat Ong, Tat-Seng Chua National University of Singapore SIGIR2006.
Answer Mining by Combining Extraction Techniques with Abductive Reasoning Sanda Harabagiu, Dan Moldovan, Christine Clark, Mitchell Bowden, Jown Williams.
Acquisition of Categorized Named Entities for Web Search Marius Pasca Google Inc. from Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) ’04.
1 Gloss-based Semantic Similarity Metrics for Predominant Sense Acquisition Ryu Iida Nara Institute of Science and Technology Diana McCarthy and Rob Koeling.
Unsupervised Relation Detection using Automatic Alignment of Query Patterns extracted from Knowledge Graphs and Query Click Logs Panupong PasupatDilek.
MMM2005The Chinese University of Hong Kong MMM2005 The Chinese University of Hong Kong 1 Video Summarization Using Mutual Reinforcement Principle and Shot.
Information Retrieval Lecture 3 Introduction to Information Retrieval (Manning et al. 2007) Chapter 8 For the MSc Computer Science Programme Dell Zhang.
Instance Discovery and Schema Matching With Applications to Biological Deep Web Data Integration Tantan Liu, Fan Wang, Gagan Agrawal {liut, wangfa,
Usefulness of Quality Click- through Data for Training Craig Macdonald, ladh Ounis Department of Computing Science University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
GoRelations: an Intuitive Query System for DBPedia Lushan Han and Tim Finin 15 November 2011
Sentiment Analysis Using Common- Sense and Context Information Basant Agarwal 1,2, Namita Mittal 2, Pooja Bansal 2, and Sonal Garg 2 1 Department of Computer.
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL MEASUREMENT OF RELEVANCE EFFECTIVENESS 1Adrienn Skrop.
NELL Knowledge Base of Verbs
Semantic Parsing for Question Answering
Temporal Constraint Acquisition
Associative Query Answering via Query Feature Similarity
Acquiring Comparative Commonsense Knowledge from the Web
Extracting Semantic Concept Relations
Question Answering & Linked Data
Word embeddings (continued)
Presentation transcript:

Natural Language Questions for the Web of Data Mohamed Yahya 1, Klaus Berberich 1, Shady Elbassuoni 2 Maya Ramanath 3, Volker Tresp 4, Gerhard Weikum 1 1 Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Germany 2 Qatar Computing Research Institute 3 Dept. of CSE, IIT-Delhi, India 4 Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, Munich, Germany EMNLP 2012

Example of question “Which female actor played in Casablanca and is married to a writer who was born in Rome?”. Which actress from Casablanca is married to a writer from Rome? Translation to SPARQL : – ?x hasGender female – ?x isa actor – ?x actedIn Casablanca_(film) – ?x marriedTo ?w – ?w isa writer – ?w bornIn Rome Characteristics of SPARQL : – Complex query – good results – Difficult for the user Author wants: automatically create such structured queries by mapping the user’s question into this representation

Translate q NL to q FL q NL → q FL q NL : natural language question q FL : formal language query KB : knowledge base q FL (target language) is SPARQL 1.0

Yago2 YAGO2s is a huge semantic knowledge base, derived from Wikipedia, WordNet and GeoNames.

sample facts from Yago2 Examples of relations: – type, subclassOf, and actedIn. Examples of class: – person and film. Examples of Entities : – Entities are represented in canonical form such as ‘Ingrid_Bergman’ and ‘Casablanca_(film)’. – special type of entities : strings, numbers, and dates.

DEANNA DEANNA (DEep Answers for maNy Naturally Asked questions)

question sentence q NL = (t 0, t 1,..., t n ). Phrase = (t i, t i+1,..., t i+l ) ⊆ q NL, 0 ≤ i, 0 ≤ l ≤ n Phrase focus on entities, classes, and relations – e.g., “Which actress from Casablanca is married to a writer from Rome?” entities : Casablanca, … Classes : actresses, … relations : marriedTo, …

Phrase detection Phrases are detected that potentially correspond to semantic items such as ‘Who’, ‘played in’, ‘movie’ and ‘Casablanca’.

Phrase detection A detected phrase p is a pair – Toks : phrase – l : label (l ∈ {concept, relation}) P r : the set of all detected relation phrases. P c : the set of all detected concept phrases. null phrase : – null phrase is special type of detected relation phrase – e.g., adjectives, such as ‘Australian movie’,

concept detection works against a phrase-concept dictionary – phrase-concept dictionary : instances of the means relation in Yago2 e.g., – {‘Rome’, ‘eternal city’} → Rome – {‘Casablanca’} → Casablanca_(film)

relation detection rely on a relation detector based on ReVerb (Fader et al., 2011) with additional POS tag patterns, in addition to our own which looks for patterns in dependency parses.

Phrase Mapping

each phrase is mapped to a set of semantic items. To map concept phrases: – also relies on the phrase-concept dictionary. To map relation phrases: – rely on a corpus of textual patterns to relation mappings of the form – {‘play’, ‘star in’, ‘act’, ‘leading role’} → actedIn – {‘married’, ‘spouse’, ‘wife’} → marriedTo

Example of Phrase Mapping ‘played in’ can either refer to the semantic relation actedIn or to playedForTeam and ‘Casablanca’ can potentially refer to Casablanca_(film) or Casablanca,_Morocco.

Dependency Parsing & Q-Unit Generation

Dependency parsing Dependency parsing identifies triples of tokens,or triploids –, where t rel, t arg1, t arg2 ∈ q NL – t rel : the seed for the relation phrase – t arg1, t arg2 : seeds for the concept phrase. – there is no attempt to assign subject/object roles to the arguments.

Q-Unit Generation By combining triploids with detected phrases, we obtain q- units. q-unit is a triple of sets of phrases, – – t rel ∈ p rel, t arg1 ∈ p arg1, and t arg2 ∈ p arg2.

Joint Disambiguation

goal of the disambiguation step each phrase is assigned to at most one semantic item resolves the phrase boundary ambiguity – (only nonoverlapping phrases are mapped) all phrases jointly in one big disambiguation task

resulting subgraph for the disambiguation graph of Figure 3

Disambiguation Graph Joint disambiguation takes place over a disambiguation graph DG = (V, E), – V = V s ∪ V p ∪ V q – E = E sim ∪ E coh ∪ E q

Type of vertices V = V s ∪ V p ∪ V q – V s : the set of semantic items v s ∈ V s is an s-node – V p : the set of phrases v p ∈ V p is called a p-node. V rp : relation phrases V rc : concept phrases – V q : a set of placeholder nodes for q–units

Type of edges E sim ⊆ V p × V s – a set of weighted similarity edges E coh ⊆ V s × V s – a set of weighted coherence edges E q ⊆ V q × V p × d, d ∈ {rel, arg1, arg2} – Called q-edge

Coh sem (Semantic Coherence) define the semantic coherence (Cohsem) – between two semantic items s1 and s2 as the Jaccard coefficient of their sets of inlinks. For entities e – InLinks(e) : the set of Yago2 entities whose corresponding Wikipedia pages link to the entity. For class c with entities e – InLinks(c) = ∪ e ∈ c Inlinks(e) For relations r – InLinks(r) = ∪ (e1, e2) ∈ r (InLinks(e 1 ) ∩ InLinks(e 2 ))

Similarity Weights For entities – how often a phrase refers to a certain entity in Wikipedia. For classes – reflects the number of members in a class For relations – reflects the maximum n-gram similarity between the phrase and any of the relation’s surface forms

Disambiguation Graph Processing The result of disambiguation is a subgraph of the disambiguation graph, yielding the most coherent mappings. We employ an ILP to this end.

Definitions (part1)

Definitions (part2)

objective function

Constraints(1~3)

Constraints(4~7)

Constraints(8)

Constraints(9)

resulting subgraph for the disambiguation graph of Figure 3

Query Generation not assign subject/object roles in triploids and q-units Example: – “Which singer is married to a singer?” ?x type singer, ?x marriedTo ?y, and ?y type singer

5 Evaluation Datasets Evaluation Metrics Results & Discussion

Datasets QALD-1 – 1st Workshop on Question Answering over Linked Data (QALD-1) – context of the NAGA project NAGA collection – The NAGA collection is based on linking data from the Yago2 knowledge base Training set – 23 QALD-1 questions – 43 NAGA questions Test set – 27 QALD-1 questions – 44 NAGA questions Get hyperparameters (α, β, γ) in the ILP objective function. 19 QALD-1 questions in Test set

Evaluation Metrics author evaluated the output of DEANNA at three stages – 1. after the disambiguation of phrases – 2. after the generation of the SPARQL query – 3. after obtaining answers from the underlying linked- data sources Judgement – two human assessors who judged whether an output item was good or not – If the two were in disagreement, then a third person resolved the judgment.

disambiguation stage The task of judges – looked at each q-node/s-node pair, in the context of the question and the underlying data schemas, – determined whether the mapping was correct or not – determined whether any expected mappings were missing.

query-generation stage The task of judges – Looked at each triple pattern – determined whether the pattern was meaningful for the question or not – whether any expected triple pattern was missing.

query-answering stage the judges were asked to identify if the result sets for the generated queries are satisfactory.

Micro-averaging aggregates over all assessed items regardless of the questions to which they belong. Macro-averaging first aggregates the items for the same question, and then averages the quality measure over all questions. For a question q and item set s in one of the stages of evaluation correct(q, s) : the number of correct items in s ideal(q) : the size of the ideal item set retrieved(q, s) : the number of retrieved items define coverage and precision as follows: cov(q, s) = correct(q, s) / ideal(q) prec(q, s) = correct(q, s) / retrieved(q, s).

Conclusions Author presented a method for translating natural language questions into structured queries. Although author’s model, in principle, leads to high combinatorial complexity, they observed that the Gurobi solver could handle they judiciously designed ILP very efficiently. Author’s experimental studies showed very high precision and good coverage of the query translation, and good results in the actual question answers.

q NL focus on entities, classes, and relations – Ex: “Which actress from Casablanca is married to a writer from Rome?” entities : Casablanca, … Classes : actresses, … relations : marriedTo, …