@inproceedings{ek-etal-2021-predicate,
title = "Can predicate-argument relationships be extracted from {UD} trees?",
author = "Ek, Adam and
Bernardy, Jean-Philippe and
Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios",
editor = "Bonial, Claire and
Xue, Nianwen",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Joint 15th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW) and 3rd Designing Meaning Representations (DMR) Workshop",
month = nov,
year = "2021",
address = "Punta Cana, Dominican Republic",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2021.law-1.5",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2021.law-1.5",
pages = "46--55",
abstract = "In this paper we investigate the possibility of extracting predicate-argument relations from UD trees (and enhanced UD graphs). Con- cretely, we apply UD parsers on an En- glish question answering/semantic-role label- ing data set (FitzGerald et al., 2018) and check if the annotations reflect the relations in the resulting parse trees, using a small number of rules to extract this information. We find that 79.1{\%} of the argument-predicate pairs can be found in this way, on the basis of Ud- ify (Kondratyuk and Straka, 2019). Error anal- ysis reveals that half of the error cases are at- tributable to shortcomings in the dataset. The remaining errors are mostly due to predicate- argument relations not being extractible algo- rithmically from the UD trees (requiring se- mantic reasoning to be resolved). The parser itself is only responsible for a small portion of errors. Our analysis suggests a number of improvements to the UD annotation schema: we propose to enhance the schema in four ways, in order to capture argument-predicate relations. Additionally, we propose improve- ments regarding data collection for question answering/semantic-role labeling data.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="ek-etal-2021-predicate">
<titleInfo>
<title>Can predicate-argument relationships be extracted from UD trees?</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Adam</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ek</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jean-Philippe</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bernardy</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Stergios</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Chatzikyriakidis</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2021-11</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the Joint 15th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW) and 3rd Designing Meaning Representations (DMR) Workshop</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Claire</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bonial</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nianwen</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Xue</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Punta Cana, Dominican Republic</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>In this paper we investigate the possibility of extracting predicate-argument relations from UD trees (and enhanced UD graphs). Con- cretely, we apply UD parsers on an En- glish question answering/semantic-role label- ing data set (FitzGerald et al., 2018) and check if the annotations reflect the relations in the resulting parse trees, using a small number of rules to extract this information. We find that 79.1% of the argument-predicate pairs can be found in this way, on the basis of Ud- ify (Kondratyuk and Straka, 2019). Error anal- ysis reveals that half of the error cases are at- tributable to shortcomings in the dataset. The remaining errors are mostly due to predicate- argument relations not being extractible algo- rithmically from the UD trees (requiring se- mantic reasoning to be resolved). The parser itself is only responsible for a small portion of errors. Our analysis suggests a number of improvements to the UD annotation schema: we propose to enhance the schema in four ways, in order to capture argument-predicate relations. Additionally, we propose improve- ments regarding data collection for question answering/semantic-role labeling data.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">ek-etal-2021-predicate</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/2021.law-1.5</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2021.law-1.5</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2021-11</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>46</start>
<end>55</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Can predicate-argument relationships be extracted from UD trees?
%A Ek, Adam
%A Bernardy, Jean-Philippe
%A Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios
%Y Bonial, Claire
%Y Xue, Nianwen
%S Proceedings of the Joint 15th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW) and 3rd Designing Meaning Representations (DMR) Workshop
%D 2021
%8 November
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Punta Cana, Dominican Republic
%F ek-etal-2021-predicate
%X In this paper we investigate the possibility of extracting predicate-argument relations from UD trees (and enhanced UD graphs). Con- cretely, we apply UD parsers on an En- glish question answering/semantic-role label- ing data set (FitzGerald et al., 2018) and check if the annotations reflect the relations in the resulting parse trees, using a small number of rules to extract this information. We find that 79.1% of the argument-predicate pairs can be found in this way, on the basis of Ud- ify (Kondratyuk and Straka, 2019). Error anal- ysis reveals that half of the error cases are at- tributable to shortcomings in the dataset. The remaining errors are mostly due to predicate- argument relations not being extractible algo- rithmically from the UD trees (requiring se- mantic reasoning to be resolved). The parser itself is only responsible for a small portion of errors. Our analysis suggests a number of improvements to the UD annotation schema: we propose to enhance the schema in four ways, in order to capture argument-predicate relations. Additionally, we propose improve- ments regarding data collection for question answering/semantic-role labeling data.
%R 10.18653/v1/2021.law-1.5
%U https://aclanthology.org/2021.law-1.5
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.law-1.5
%P 46-55
Markdown (Informal)
[Can predicate-argument relationships be extracted from UD trees?](https://aclanthology.org/2021.law-1.5) (Ek et al., LAW 2021)
ACL
- Adam Ek, Jean-Philippe Bernardy, and Stergios Chatzikyriakidis. 2021. Can predicate-argument relationships be extracted from UD trees?. In Proceedings of the Joint 15th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW) and 3rd Designing Meaning Representations (DMR) Workshop, pages 46–55, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.