Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parsing aims at converting sentences into AMR representations. These are graphs and not trees because AMR supports reentrancies (nodes with more than one parent). Following previous findings on the importance of reen- trancies for AMR, we empirically find and discuss several linguistic phenomena respon- sible for reentrancies in AMR, some of which have not received attention before. We cate- gorize the types of errors AMR parsers make with respect to reentrancies. Furthermore, we find that correcting these errors provides an in- crease of up to 5% Smatch in parsing perfor- mance and 20% in reentrancy prediction
Combining two graphs requires merging the nodes which are counterparts of each other. In this process errors occur, resulting in incorrect merging or incorrect failure to merge. We find a high prevalence of such errors when using AskNET, an algorithm for building Knowledge Graphs from text corpora. AskNET node matching method uses string similarity, which we propose to replace with vector embedding similarity. We explore graph-based and word-based embedding models and show an overall error reduction of from 56% to 23.6%, with a reduction of over a half in both types of incorrect node matching.
Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) annotations are often assumed to closely mirror dependency syntax, but AMR explicitly does not require this, and the assumption has never been tested. To test it, we devise an expressive framework to align AMR graphs to dependency graphs, which we use to annotate 200 AMRs. Our annotation explains how 97% of AMR edges are evoked by words or syntax. Previously existing AMR alignment frameworks did not allow for mapping AMR onto syntax, and as a consequence they explained at most 23%. While we find that there are indeed many cases where AMR annotations closely mirror syntax, there are also pervasive differences. We use our annotations to test a baseline AMR-to-syntax aligner, finding that this task is more difficult than AMR-to-string alignment; and to pinpoint errors in an AMR parser. We make our data and code freely available for further research on AMR parsing and generation, and the relationship of AMR to syntax.