Determining the Hierarchical Structure of Perspective and Speech Expressions

1

Determining the Hierarchical Structure of Perspective and Speech Expressions

Eric Breck and Claire CardieCornell University

Department of Computer Science

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 2

Events in the News

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 3

Reporting events

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 4

Reporting in text

Clapp sums up the environmental movement’s reaction: “The polluters are unreasonable’’

Charlie was angry at Alice’s claim that Bob was unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 5

Perspective and Speech Expressions (pse’s)

A perspective expression is text denoting an explicit opinion, belief, sentiment, etc. The actor was elated that … John’s firm belief in …

A speech expression is text denoting spoken or written communication … argued the attorney ... … the 9/11 Commission’s final report …

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 6

Grand Vision

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

Charlie was angry at Alice’s claim that Bob was unhappy

writer

Charlie Alice

Bob

that Bob was unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 7

This Work

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 8

System Output: Pse Hierarchy

Charlie was angry at Alice’s claim that Bob was unhappy

78% accurate!

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 9

Related Work: Abstract

Bergler, 1993 Lexical semantics of reporting verbs

Gerard, 2000 Abstract model of news reader

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 10

Related Work: Concrete

Bethard et al., 2004 Extract propositional opinions & holders

Wiebe, 1994 Tracks “point of view” in narrative text

Wiebe et al., 2003 Preliminary results on pse identification

Gildea and Jurafsky, 2002 Semantic Role ID - use for finding sources?

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 11

Baseline 1: Only filter through writer

Only 66% correct

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

unhappy

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 12

Baseline 2: Dependency Tree

72% correct

angry

(implicit)

claim

unhappy

claim

unhappy

claim

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 13

A Learning Approach How do we cast the recovery of

hierarchical structure as a learning problem?

Simplest solution Learn pairwise attachment decisions

Is pseparent the parent of psetarget? Combine decisions to form tree

Other solutions are possible (n-ary decisions, tree-modeling, etc.)

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 14

Training instances

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 15

Training instances

<unhappy, (implicit)>

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 16

Training instances

<unhappy, (implicit)><claim, (implicit)>

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 17

Training instances

<unhappy, (implicit)><claim, (implicit)><angry, (implicit)>

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 18

Training instances

<unhappy, (implicit)><claim, (implicit)><angry, (implicit)><unhappy, claim><claim, unhappy>

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 19

Training instances

<unhappy, (implicit)><claim, (implicit)><angry, (implicit)><unhappy, claim><claim, unhappy>

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy <unhappy,

angry><angry,

unhappy>

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 20

Training instances

<unhappy, (implicit)><claim, (implicit)><angry, (implicit)><unhappy, claim><claim, unhappy>

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy<unhappy, angry>

<angry, unhappy> <angry, claim><claim, angry>

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 21

Decision Combination(implicit)

angryclaim

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 22

Decision Combination

angry

(implicit) angry

0.9 <angry, (implicit)>

0.1 <angry, claim>

0.1 <angry, unhappy>

claim

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 23

Decision Combination

angry

(implicit)

claim

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 24

Decision Combination

angryclai

m

(implicit) claim

0.5 <claim, (implicit)>

0.4 <claim, angry>

0.3 <claim, unhappy>unhapp

y

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 25

Decision Combination

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 26

Decision Combination

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

unhappy

0.7 <unhappy, claim>

0.5 <unhappy, (implicit)>

0.2 <unhappy, angry>

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 27

Decision Combination

angry

claim

(implicit)

unhappy

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 28

Features(1)

All features based on error analysis

Parse-based features Domination+ variants

Positional features Relative position of pseparent and psetarget

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 29

Features(2) Lexical features

writer’s implicit pse “said” “according to” part of speech

Genre-specific features Charlie, she noted, dislikes Chinese

food. “Alice disagrees with me,” Bob said.

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 30

Resources

GATE toolkit (Cunningham et al, 2002) - part-of-speech, tokenization, sentence boundaries

Collins parser (1999) - extracted dependency parses

CASS partial parser (Abney, 1997) IND decision trees (Buntine, 1993)

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 31

Data From the NRRC Multi-Perspective

Question Answering workshop (Wiebe, 2002)

535 newswire documents (66 for development, 469 for evaluation)

All pse’s annotated, along with sources and other information Hierarchical pse structure annotated

for each sentence*

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 32

Example (truncated) model

One learned tree, truncated to depth 3: pse0 is parent of pse1 iff

pse0 is (implicit) And pse1 is not in quotes

OR pse0 is said

Typical trees on development data: Depth ~20, ~700 leaves

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 33

Evaluation

Dependency-based metric (Lin, 1995) Percentage of pse’s whose parents are

identified correctly

Percentage of sentences with perfectly identified structure

Performance of binary classifier

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 34

Results

6672

78

3645

55

73 7882

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

DependencyScore

SentencesPerfect

BinaryClassifier

Baseline 1 -writer parent

Baseline 2 -syntacticdomination

Decision Tree

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 35

Error Analysis

Pairwise decisions prevent the model from learning larger structure

Speech events and perspective expressions behave differently

Treebank-style parses don’t always have the structure we need

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 36

Future Work

Identify pse’s Identify sources Evaluate alternative structure-

learning methods Use the structure to generate

perspective-oriented summaries

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 37

Conclusions

Understanding pse structure is important for understanding text

Automated analysis of pse structure is possible

Cornell University Computer Science COLING 2004 38

Thank you!