1. Automatic Noun Compound Interpretation Stephen Tratz Eduard Hovy University of Southern California/ Information Sciences Institute

2. Noun Compound Definition A head noun with one or more preceding noun modifiers Examples: uranium rod, mountain cave, terrorist attack Other names – noun-noun compound – noun sequence – compound nominal – complex nominal

3. Problem 1: Relation between modifier and head nouns – uranium rod (n 1 substance-of n 2 ) – mountain cave (n 1 location-of n 2 ) – terrorist attack (n 1 performer-of n 2 ) Problem 2: Structure of long noun compounds – ((aluminum soup) (pot cover)) – ((aluminum (soup pot)) cover) – (aluminum ((soup pot) cover)) The Problems

4. The Need Needed for natural language understanding – Question answering – Recognition of textual entailment – Summarization – Summarization evaluation – Etc

5. Solution A taxonomy of relations that occur between nouns in noun compounds Wide coverage of relations Good definitions High inter-annotator agreement An automatic classification method For supervised approaches, this requires a sufficiently large annotated dataset

6. Weaknesses of earlier solutions Limited-quality/usefulness relations Using unlimited number of relations Using a few ambiguous relations such as prepositions and a handful of simple verbs (e.g., BE, HAVE, CAUSE) --- still need to disambiguate! Definitions are sometimes not provided Low inter-annotator agreement Limited annotated data (problem for supervised classification)

7. Dataset Dataset of 17.5k noun compounds from: – a large dataset extracted using mutual information plus part-of-speech tagging – the WSJ portion of the Penn Treebank

8. Dataset Comparison SizeWork 17509Tratz and Hovy, 2010 2169Kim and Baldwin, 2005 2031*Girju, 2007 1660Rosario and Hearst, 2001 1443Ó Séaghdha and Copestake, 2007 505*Barker and Szpakowicz, 1998 600*Nastase and Szpakowicz, 2003 395Vanderwende, 1994 385Lauer, 1995

9. Our Semantic Relations Relation taxonomy 43 relations Relatively fine-grained Defined using sentences Have rough mappings to relations used in well- known noun compound research papers

10. Relation examples Substance/Material/Ingredient Of (uranium rod) – n 1 is one of the primary physical substances/ materials/ingredients that n 2 is made out of/from Location Of (mountain cave) – n 1 is the location / geographic scope where n 2 is at, near, from, generally found, or occurs.

11. All The Relations Communica tor of Communica tion Performer of Act/Activity Creator/Pro vider/Cause Of Perform/En gage_In Create/Prov ide/Sell Obtain/Acce ss/Seek Modify/Proc ess/Change Mitigate/Op pose/Destro y Organize/S upervise/Au thority Propel Protect/Con serve Transport/T ransfer/Trad e Traverse/Vi sit Possessor + Owned/Pos sessed Experiencer + Cognition/M ental Employer+ Employee/V olunteer Consumer + Consumed User/Recipi ent + Used/Recei ved Owned/Pos sessed + Possession Experiencer + Experiencer Thing Consumed + Consumer Thing/Mean s Used + User Time [Span] + X X + Time [Span] Location/Geographic Scope of X Whole + Part/Member Of Substance/Material/In gredient + Whole Part/Member + Collection/Configurati on/Series X + Spatial Container/Location/B ounds Topic of Communication/Imag ery/Info Topic of Plan/Deal/Arrangeme nt/Rules Topic of Observation/Study/Ev aluation Topic of Cognition/Emotion Topic of Expert Topic of Situation Topic of Event/Process Topic/Thing + Attribute Topic/Thing + Attribute Value Characteristic Of Coreferential Partial Attribute Transfer Measure + Whole Highly Lexicalized / Fixed Pair Other

12. Taxonomy Creation Taxonomy created by Inspecting a large number of examples Comparing relations to those in literature Refining relations using Mechanical Turk Upload data for annotation Analyze annotations Make changes Repeat (5x)

13. Inter-annotator agreement study What: – Calculate the level of agreement between two or more sets of annotations Why: – Human agreement typically represents an upper bound on machine performance How: – Used Amazon's Mechanical Turk service to collect a set of annotations

14. Reasons for using Turk Inexpensive – Paid $0.08 per decision Low startup time – Don't have to wait long for people to start working Relatively fast turnaround

15. Problems with using Turk Mixed annotator quality No training for the annotators No guarantee of native English speakers Different number of annotations per Turker – Can't force someone to annotate everything – Problem for 3+ annotator agreement formula (Fleiss' Kappa)

16. Solution: Combine Turkers Requested 10 annotations per compound Calculated a weight for each Turker based upon his/her level of agreement with other Turkers – Average percentage of annotations that agreed with the Turker Used weights to created a single set of annotations Ignored Turkers who performed less than 3 annotations

17. Agreement Scores Calculated raw agreement – # agreements / # decisions Cohen's Kappa – Adjusts for chance agreement

18. Id Agree % κκ*κ** Combined0.590.570.610.67 Auto0.510.47 0.45 Agreement Results

19. Individual Turker Agreement (vs author, N >= 15)

20. Turker vote weight vs Agreement Correlation for Turkers who performed 15 or more vs Agreement: 0.92

21. Comparison to other studies

22. Automatic Classification Method Maximum Entropy classifier – SVM multiclass gave similar performance after optimizing the C parameter Large number of boolean features extracted for each word from WordNet Roget's Thesaurus Web 1T Corpus the spelling of the words

23. Features Used Synonyms Hypernyms Definition words Lexicographer Ids Link types (e.g., part-of) List of different types of part-of-speech entries All parts-of Prefixes, suffixes Roget's division information Last letters of the word Trigrams and 4-grams from Web 1T corpus Some combinations of features (e.g. shared hypernyms) A handful of others

24. Cross-validation experiments Performed one-feature-type-only and all-but- one experiments for the different types of features Most useful features – Hypernyms – Definition words – Synonyms – Web 1T trigrams and 4-grams

25. Conclusion Novel taxonomy 43 fine-grained relations Defined using sentences with placeholders for the nouns Achieved relatively high inter- annotator agreement given the difficulty of the task Largest annotated dataset Over 8 times larger than the next largest Automatic classification method Achieves performance approximately.10 less than human inter-annotator agreement

26. Future Work Address structural issues of longer (3+ word) compounds Merge relation set with The Preposition Project (Litkowski, 2002) relations for prepositions Integrate into a dependency parser

27. The End Thank you for listening Questions?