Argument Identification | o dependency path between a’s head and the predicate |
Argument Identification | o the set of dependency labels of the predicate’s children 0 dependency path conjoined with the POS tag of a’s head |
Argument Identification | 0 dependency path conjoined with the word cluster of a’s head |
Frame Identification with Embeddings | second example, for the predicate run, the agent The athlete is not a direct dependent, but is connected via a longer dependency path . |
Frame Identification with Embeddings | Dependency Paths To capture more relevant context, we developed a second context function as follows. |
Frame Identification with Embeddings | We scanned the training data for a given task (either the PropBank or the FrameNet domains) for the dependency paths that connected the gold predicates to the gold semantic arguments. |
Identifying Key Medical Relations | The similarity of two sentences is defined as the bag-of-words similarity of the dependency paths connecting arguments. |
Relation Extraction with Manifold Models | o (3) Syntactic features representing the dependency path between two arguments, such as “subj”, “pred”, “modJiprep” and “objprep” (between arguments “antibiotic” and “lyme disease”) in Figure 2. |
Relation Extraction with Manifold Models | 0 (5) Topic features modeling the words in the dependency path . |
Relation Extraction with Manifold Models | In the example given in Figure 2, the dependency path contains the following words: “be”, “standard therapy” and “for”. |
Approaches | (2009), we include the notion of verb and noun supports and sections of the dependency path . |
Experiments | This highlights an important advantage of the pipeline trained model: the features can consider any part of the syntax (e. g., arbitrary sub-trees), whereas the joint model is limited to those features over which it can efficiently marginalize (e.g., short dependency paths ). |
Introduction | Even at the expense of no dependency path features, the joint models best pipeline-trained models for state-of-the-art performance in the low-resource setting (§ 4.4). |
Related Work | (2009), who utilize features on syntactic siblings and the dependency path concatenated with the direction of each edge. |
Guided DS | entity types, a dependency path and maybe a span word, if g has one. |
The Challenge | Each guideline g={gi|i=1,2,3} consists of a pair of semantic types, a dependency path , and optionally a span word and is associated with a particular relation r(g). |
The Challenge | Table 3: Performance of a MaxEnt, trained on hand-labeled data using all features (Surdeanu et al., 2011) vs using a subset of two (types of entities, dependency path ), or three (adding a span word) features, and evaluated on the test set. |
Approach | The syntactic rules correspond to the shortest dependency paths between an opinion word and an extracted mention. |
Approach | We consider the 10 most frequent dependency paths in the training data. |
Approach | Example dependency paths include nsubj(opinion, mention), nobj(opinion, mention), and am0d(mention, opinion). |