Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015) 2015
DOI: 10.18653/v1/s15-2075
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CMILLS: Adapting Semantic Role Labeling Features to Dependency Parsing

Abstract: We describe a system for semantic role labeling adapted to a dependency parsing framework. Verb arguments are predicted over nodes in a dependency parse tree instead of nodes in a phrase-structure parse tree. Our system participated in SemEval-2015 shared Task 15, Subtask 1: CPA parsing and achieved an Fscore of 0.516. We adapted features from prior semantic role labeling work to the dependency parsing paradigm, using a series of supervised classifiers to identify arguments of a verb and then assigning syntact… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…CPA parsing aims at identifying the arguments of the target and tagging predefined semantic meaning on them; CPA clustering clusters the instances to obtain CPA frames based on the result of CPA parsing. However, the first step results seem unpromising (Feng et al, 2015;Mills and Levow, 2015;Elia, 2016) which will influence the process of obtaining CPA frames. Since our model can be applied on sentence-level input without feature extraction we can directly evaluate …”
Section: Cpa Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CPA parsing aims at identifying the arguments of the target and tagging predefined semantic meaning on them; CPA clustering clusters the instances to obtain CPA frames based on the result of CPA parsing. However, the first step results seem unpromising (Feng et al, 2015;Mills and Levow, 2015;Elia, 2016) which will influence the process of obtaining CPA frames. Since our model can be applied on sentence-level input without feature extraction we can directly evaluate …”
Section: Cpa Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most important part in solving this task is undoubtedly identifying which tokens in the sentence are actual arguments for the verb, because mistakes at this stage will reflect on all the following steps and will negatively impact the performance of the system. For this reason, similarly to the approach used in [1], I divided the CPA parsing task into three smaller subtasks: argument identification, syntactic classification and semantic classification. Although a single classifier could be used to jointly identify and syntactically classify each token (i.e., by directly assigning a label of "subj", "obj", etc... when a token is an argument and assigning a label of "none" when the token is not) this division allows to separately study which features work best for argument identification and thus improve it without having to worry about the syntactic classification yet.…”
Section: Cpa Parsingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CMILLS (Mills and Levow, 2015) used three models to solve the task: one for argument detection, and the other two for each layer. Argument detection and syntactic tagging were performed using a MaxEnt supervised classifier, while the last was based on heuristics.…”
Section: Subtaskmentioning
confidence: 99%