Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userThirty Musts for Meaning Banking
70
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Lasha Abzianidze
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Meaning banking--creating a semantically annotated corpus for the purpose of semantic parsing or generation--is a challenging task. It is quite simple to come up with a complex meaning representation, but it is hard to design a simple meaning representation that captures many nuances of meaning. This paper lists some lessons learned in nearly ten years of meaning annotation during the development of the Groningen Meaning Bank (Bos et al., 2017) and the Parallel Meaning Bank (Abzianidze et al., 2017). The papers format is rather unconventional: there is no explicit related work, no methodology section, no results, and no discussion (and the current snippet is not an abstract but actually an introductory preface). Instead, its structure is inspired by work of Traum (2000) and Bender (2013). The list starts with a brief overview of the existing meaning banks (Section 1) and the rest of the items are roughly divided into three groups: corpus collection (Section 2 and 3, annotation methods (Section 4-11), and design of meaning representations (Section 12-30). We hope this overview will give inspiration and guidance in creating improved meaning banks in the future.
rate research
Read More
In this paper we argue that (lexical) meaning in science can be represented in a 13 dimension Meaning Space. This space is constructed using principal component analysis (singular decomposition) on the matrix of word category relative information gains, where the categories are those used by the Web of Science, and the words are taken from a reduced word set from texts in the Web of Science. We show that this reduced word set plausibly represents all texts in the corpus, so that the principal component analysis has some objective meaning with respect to the corpus. We argue that 13 dimensions is adequate to describe the meaning of scientific texts, and hypothesise about the qualitative meaning of the principal components.
Knowledge base question answering (KBQA)is an important task in Natural Language Processing. Existing approaches face significant challenges including complex question understanding, necessity for reasoning, and lack of large end-to-end training datasets. In this work, we propose Neuro-Symbolic Question Answering (NSQA), a modular KBQA system, that leverages (1) Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parses for task-independent question understanding; (2) a simple yet effective graph transformation approach to convert AMR parses into candidate logical queries that are aligned to the KB; (3) a pipeline-based approach which integrates multiple, reusable modules that are trained specifically for their individual tasks (semantic parser, entity andrelationship linkers, and neuro-symbolic reasoner) and do not require end-to-end training data. NSQA achieves state-of-the-art performance on two prominent KBQA datasets based on DBpedia (QALD-9 and LC-QuAD1.0). Furthermore, our analysis emphasizes that AMR is a powerful tool for KBQA systems.
We discuss an algorithm which produces the meaning of a sentence given meanings of its words, and its resemblance to quantum teleportation. In fact, this protocol was the main source of inspiration for this algorithm which has many applications in the area of Natural Language Processing.
Machines have achieved a broad and growing set of linguistic competencies, thanks to recent progress in Natural Language Processing (NLP). Psychologists have shown increasing interest in such models, comparing their output to psychological judgments such as similarity, association, priming, and comprehension, raising the question of whether the models could serve as psychological theories. In this article, we compare how humans and machines represent the meaning of words. We argue that contemporary NLP systems are fairly successful models of human word similarity, but they fall short in many other respects. Current models are too strongly linked to the text-based patterns in large corpora, and too weakly linked to the desires, goals, and beliefs that people express through words. Word meanings must also be grounded in perception and action and be capable of flexible combinations in ways that current systems are not. We discuss more promising approaches to grounding NLP systems and argue that they will be more successful with a more human-like, conceptual basis for word meaning.
This paper gives a general description of the ideas behind the Parallel Meaning Bank, a framework with the aim to provide an easy way to annotate compositional semantics for texts written in languages other than English. The annotation procedure is semi-automatic, and comprises seven layers of linguistic information: segmentation, symbolisation, semantic tagging, word sense disambiguation, syntactic structure, thematic role labelling, and co-reference. New languages can be added to the meaning bank as long as the documents are based on translations from English, but also introduce new interesting challenges on the linguistics assumptions underlying the Parallel Meaning Bank.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
