1. Machine Reading of Web Text Oren Etzioni Turing Center University of Washington http://turing.cs.washington.edu

2. 2 Rorschach Test

3. 3 Rorschach Test for CS

4. 4 Moore’s Law?

5. 5 Storage Capacity?

6. 6 Number of Web Pages?

7. 7 Number of Facebook Users?

8. 8

9. 9 Turing Center Foci Scale MT to 49,000,000 language pairs  2,500,000 word translation graph  P(V  F  C)?  PanImages PanImages Accumulate knowledge from the Web A new paradigm for Web Search

10. 10 Outline 1. A New Paradigm for Search 2. Open Information Extraction 3. Tractable Inference 4. Conclusions

11. 11 Web Search in 2020? Type key words into a search box? Social or “human powered” Search? The Semantic Web? What about our technology exponentials? “The best way to predict the future is to invent it!”

12. 12 Intelligent Search Instead of merely retrieving Web pages, read ‘em! Machine Reading = Information Extraction (IE) + tractable inference IE(sentence) = who did what?  speaker(Alon Halevy, UW) Inference = uncover implicit information  Will Alon visit Seattle?

13. 13 Application: Information Fusion What kills bacteria? What west coast, nano-technology companies are hiring? Compare Obama’s “buzz” versus Hillary’s? What is a quiet, inexpensive, 4-star hotel in Vancouver?

14. 14 Opine (Popescu & Etzioni, EMNLP ’05) IE(product reviews)  Informative  Abundant, but varied  Textual Summarize reviews without any prior knowledge of product category Opinion Mining

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17 But “Reading” the Web is Tough Traditional IE is narrow IE has been applied to small, homogenous corpora No parser achieves high accuracy No named-entity taggers No supervised learning How about semi-supervised learning?

18. 18 Semi-Supervised Learning Few hand-labeled examples  Limit on the number of concepts  Concepts are pre-specified  Problematic for the Web Alternative: self-supervised learning  Learner discovers concepts on the fly  Learner automatically labels examples per concept!

19. 19 2. Open IE = Self-supervised IE (Banko, Cafarella, Soderland, et. al, IJCAI ’07) Traditional IEOpen IE Input: Corpus + Hand- labeled Data Corpus Relations: Specified in Advance Discovered Automatically Complexity: Text analysis: O(D * R) R relations Parser + Named- entity tagger O(D) D documents NP Chunker

20. 20 Extractor Overview (Banko & Etzioni, ’08) 1. Use a simple model of relationships in English to label extractions 2. Bootstrap a general model of relationships in English sentences, encoded as a CRF 3. Decompose each sentence into one or more (NP1, VP, NP2) “chunks” 4. Use CRF model to retain relevant parts of each NP and VP. The extractor is relation-independent!

21. 21 TextRunner Extraction Extract Triple representing binary relation (Arg1, Relation, Arg2) from sentence. Internet powerhouse, EBay, was originally founded by Pierre Omidyar. (Ebay, Founded by, Pierre Omidyar)

22. 22 Numerous Extraction Challenges Drop non-essential info: “was originally founded by”  founded by Retain key distinctions Ebay founded by Pierr ≠ Ebay founded Pierre Non-verb relationships “George Bush, president of the U.S…” Synonymy & aliasing Albert Einstein = Einstein ≠ Einstein Bros.

23. 23 TextRunner (Web’s 1 st Open IE system) 1. Self-Supervised Learner: automatically labels example extractions & learns an extractor 2. Single-Pass Extractor: single pass over corpus, identifying extractions in each sentence 3. Query Processor: indexes extractions  enables queries at interactive speeds

24. TextRunnerTextRunner Demo

25. 25

26. 26

27. 27 Triples 11.3 million With Well-Formed Relation 9.3 million With Well-Formed Entities 7.8 million Abstract 6.8 million 79.2% correct Concrete 1.0 million 88.1% correct Sample of 9 million Web Pages Concrete facts: (Oppenheimer, taught at, Berkeley) Abstract facts: (fruit, contain, vitamins)

28. 28 3. Tractable Inference Much of textual information is implicit I. Entity and predicate resolution II. Probability of correctness III. Composing facts to draw conclusions

29. 29 I. Entity Resolution Resolver (Yates & Etzioni, HLT ’07): determines synonymy based on relations found by TextRunner (cf. Pantel & Lin ‘01) (X, born in, 1941) (M, born in, 1941) (X, citizen of, US) (M, citizen of, US) (X, friend of, Joe) (M, friend of, Mary) P(X = M) ~ shared relations

30. 30 Relation Synonymy (1, R, 2) (2, R 4) (4, R, 8) Etc. (1, R’ 2) (2, R’, 4) (4, R’ 8) Etc. P(R = R’) ~ shared argument pairs Unsupervised probabilistic model O(N log N) algorithm run on millions of docs

31. 31 II. Probability of Correctness How likely is an extraction to be correct? Factors to consider include: Authoritativeness of source Confidence in extraction method Number of independent extractions

32. 32 Counting Extractions Lexico-syntactic patterns: (Hearst ’92) “…cities such as Seattle, Boston, and…” Turney’s PMI-IR, ACL ’02: PMI ~ co-occur frequency  # results # results  confidence in class membership.

33. 33 Formal Problem Statement If an extraction x appears k times in a set of n distinct sentences each suggesting that x belongs to C, what is the probability that x  C ? C is a class (“cities”) or a relation (“mayor of”) Note: we only count distinct sentences!

34. 34 Combinatorial Model (“Urns”) Odds increase exponentially with k, but decrease exponentially with n See Downey et al.’s IJCAI ’05 paper for formal details.

35. 35 Performance (15x Improvement) Self supervised, domain independent method

36. 36 U RNS limited on “sparse” facts A mixture of correct and incorrect e.g., ( Dave Shaver, Pickerington ) ( Ronald McDonald, McDonaldland ) context Tend to be correct e.g., ( Michael Bloomberg, New York City )

37. 37 Language Models to the Rescue (Downey, Schoenmackers, Etzioni, ACL ’07) Instead of only lexico-syntactic patterns, leverage all contexts of a particular entity Statistical ‘type check’: does Pickerington “behave” like a city? does Shaver “behave” like a mayor? Language model = HMM (built once per corpus) Project string to point in 20-dimensional space Measure proximity of Pickerington to Seattle, Boston, etc.

38. 38 III Compositional Inference (work in progress, Schoenmackers, Etzioni, Weld) Implicit information, (2+2=4) TextRunner: (Turing, born in, London) WordNet: (London, part of, England) Rule: ‘born in’ is transitive thru ‘part of’ Conclusion: (Turing, born in, England) Mechanism: MLN instantiated on the fly Rules: learned from corpus (future work) Inference Demo

39. 39 Mulder ‘01 WebKB ‘99 PMI-IR ‘01 KnowItAll, ‘04 Urns BE ‘05 KnowItNow ‘05 TextRunner ‘07 KnowItAll Family Tree Opine ‘05 Woodward ‘06 Resolver ‘07 REALM ‘07Inference ‘08

40. 40 KnowItAll Team Michele Banko Michael Cafarella Doug Downey Alan Ritter Dr. Stephen Soderland Stefan Schoenmackers Prof. Dan Weld Mausam Alumni: Dr. Ana-Maria Popescu, Dr. Alex Yates, and others.

41. 41 Related Work Sekine’s “pre-empty IE” Powerset Textual Entailment AAAI ‘07 Symposium on “Machine Reading” Growing body of work on IE from the Web

42. 42 4. Conclusions Imagine search systems that operate over a (more) semantic space Key words, documents  extractions TF-IDF, pagerank  relational models Web pages, hyper links  entities, relns Reading the Web  new Search Paradigm

43. 43

44. 44 Machine Reading = Unsupervised understanding of text Much is implicit  tractable inference is key!

45. 45 HMM in more detail Training: seek to maximize probability of corpus w given latent states t using EM: titi t i+1 t i+2 t i+3 t i+4 wiwi w i+1 w i+2 w i+3 w i+4 cities such as Los Angeles

46. 46 Using the HMM at Query Time Given a set of extractions (Arg1, Rln, Arg2) Seeds = most frequent Args for Rln 1. Distribution over t is read from the HMM 2. Compute KL divergence via f(arg, seeds) 3.For each extraction, average f over Arg1 & Arg2 4.Sort “sparse” extractions in ascending order

47. 47 Language Modeling & Open IE Self supervised Illuminating phrases  full context  Handles sparse extractions

48. 48 Focus: Open IE on Web Text Advantages Challenges “Semantically tractable” sentences Redundancy Search engines Difficult, ungrammatical sentences Unreliable information Heterogeneous corpus

49. 49 II. Probability of Correctness How likely is an extraction to be correct? Distributional Hypothesis: “words that occur in the same contexts tend to have similar meanings ” KnowItAll Hypothesis: extractions that occur in the same informative contexts more frequently are more likely to be correct.

50. 50 Relation’s arguments are “typed”: (Person, Mayor Of, City) Training: Model distribution of Person & City contexts in corpus (Distributional Hypothesis) Query time: Rank sparse triples by how well each argument’s context distribution matches that of its type Argument “Type checking” via HMM

51. 51 Silly Example (Shaver, Mayor of, Pickerington) over (Spice Girls, Mayor of, Microsoft) Because: Shaver’s contexts are more like “other mayors” than Spice Girls’, and Pickerington's contexts are more like “other cities” than Microsoft’s

52. 52 Utilizing HMMs to Check Types Challenges: Argument types are not known Can’t build model for each argument type “Textual types” are fuzzy Solution: Train an HMM for the corpus using EM & bootstrap REALM improves precision by 90%

53. 53 MLN Knowledge Bases Query Formula Find Best Query Run Query Find Implied Nodes & Cliques Results Best KB + Query Query Results New Nodes + Cliques TextRunner, WordNet BornIn(Turing, England)?Inference Rules BornIn(X, city) -> BornIn(X, country) WordNet: X is in England London is in England In(London, England) TextRunner: Turing born in X Turing was born in London BornIn(Turing, London) BornIn(Turing, England) Query: Was Turing born in England? In(London, England) BornIn(Turing, London) BornIn(Turing, England) Yes! Turing was born in England!