Multi-Document Person Name Resolution Michael Ben Fleischman (MIT), Eduard Hovy (USC) From Proceedings of ACL-42 Reference Resolution workshop 2004.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mustafa Cayci INFS 795 An Evaluation on Feature Selection for Text Clustering.
Advertisements

Learning Trajectory Patterns by Clustering: Comparative Evaluation Group D.
Date: 2012/8/13 Source: Luca Maria Aiello. al(CIKM’11) Advisor: Jia-ling, Koh Speaker: Jiun Jia, Chiou Behavior-driven Clustering of Queries into Topics.
Using Query Patterns to Learn the Durations of Events Andrey Gusev joint work with Nate Chambers, Pranav Khaitan, Divye Khilnani, Steven Bethard, Dan Jurafsky.
Sequence Clustering and Labeling for Unsupervised Query Intent Discovery Speaker: Po-Hsien Shih Advisor: Jia-Ling Koh Source: WSDM’12 Date: 1 November,
Person Name Disambiguation by Bootstrapping Presenter: Lijie Zhang Advisor: Weining Zhang.
Re-ranking for NP-Chunking: Maximum-Entropy Framework By: Mona Vajihollahi.
Confidence Estimation for Machine Translation J. Blatz et.al, Coling 04 SSLI MTRG 11/17/2004 Takahiro Shinozaki.
CS Word Sense Disambiguation. 2 Overview A problem for semantic attachment approaches: what happens when a given lexeme has multiple ‘meanings’?
Creating Concept Hierarchies in a Customer Self-Help System Bob Wall CS /29/05.
Predicting the Semantic Orientation of Adjective Vasileios Hatzivassiloglou and Kathleen R. McKeown Presented By Yash Satsangi.
Gimme’ The Context: Context- driven Automatic Semantic Annotation with CPANKOW Philipp Cimiano et al.
Exploiting Context Analysis for Combining Multiple Entity Resolution Systems Zhaoqi Chen, Dmitri V. Kalashnikov, Sharad Mehrotra University of California,
Ranking by Odds Ratio A Probability Model Approach let be a Boolean random variable: document d is relevant to query q otherwise Consider document d as.
Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents
Query session guided multi- document summarization THESIS PRESENTATION BY TAL BAUMEL ADVISOR: PROF. MICHAEL ELHADAD.
CHAMELEON : A Hierarchical Clustering Algorithm Using Dynamic Modeling
Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down? Semantic Orientation Applied to Unsupervised Classification on Reviews Peter D. Turney Institute for Information Technology National.
Personalisation Seminar on Unlocking the Secrets of the Past: Text Mining for Historical Documents Sven Steudter.
The Problem Finding information about people in huge text collections or on-line repositories on the Web is a common activity Person names, however, are.
Extracting Key Terms From Noisy and Multi-theme Documents Maria Grineva, Maxim Grinev and Dmitry Lizorkin Institute for System Programming of RAS.
LANGUAGE NETWORKS THE SMALL WORLD OF HUMAN LANGUAGE Akilan Velmurugan Computer Networks – CS 790G.
Illinois-Coref: The UI System in the CoNLL-2012 Shared Task Kai-Wei Chang, Rajhans Samdani, Alla Rozovskaya, Mark Sammons, and Dan Roth Supported by ARL,
Grouping search-engine returned citations for person-name queries Reema Al-Kamha, David W. Embley (Proceedings of the 6th annual ACM international workshop.
A Scalable Self-organizing Map Algorithm for Textual Classification: A Neural Network Approach to Thesaurus Generation Dmitri G. Roussinov Department of.
Eric H. Huang, Richard Socher, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Y. Ng Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA ImprovingWord.
A Probabilistic Graphical Model for Joint Answer Ranking in Question Answering Jeongwoo Ko, Luo Si, Eric Nyberg (SIGIR ’ 07) Speaker: Cho, Chin Wei Advisor:
Improving Suffix Tree Clustering Base cluster ranking s(B) = |B| * f(|P|) |B| is the number of documents in base cluster B |P| is the number of words in.
Combining Statistical Language Models via the Latent Maximum Entropy Principle Shaojum Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Fuchum Peng, Yunxin Zhao.
Clustering Supervised vs. Unsupervised Learning Examples of clustering in Web IR Characteristics of clustering Clustering algorithms Cluster Labeling 1.
Basic Machine Learning: Clustering CS 315 – Web Search and Data Mining 1.
Distributed Information Retrieval Server Ranking for Distributed Text Retrieval Systems on the Internet B. Yuwono and D. Lee Siemens TREC-4 Report: Further.
1 Learning Sub-structures of Document Semantic Graphs for Document Summarization 1 Jure Leskovec, 1 Marko Grobelnik, 2 Natasa Milic-Frayling 1 Jozef Stefan.
Data Management and Database Technologies 1 DATA MINING Extracting Knowledge From Data Petr Olmer CERN
Mining Social Network for Personalized Prioritization Language Techonology Institute School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Shinjae.
LexPageRank: Prestige in Multi- Document Text Summarization Gunes Erkan and Dragomir R. Radev Department of EECS, School of Information University of Michigan.
Exploiting Context Analysis for Combining Multiple Entity Resolution Systems -Ramu Bandaru Zhaoqi Chen Dmitri V.kalashnikov Sharad Mehrotra.
Graph-based Text Classification: Learn from Your Neighbors Ralitsa Angelova , Gerhard Weikum : Max Planck Institute for Informatics Stuhlsatzenhausweg.
Wikipedia as Sense Inventory to Improve Diversity in Web Search Results Celina SantamariaJulio GonzaloJavier Artiles nlp.uned.es UNED,c/Juan del Rosal,
Finding Top-k Shortest Path Distance Changes in an Evolutionary Network SSTD th August 2011 Manish Gupta UIUC Charu Aggarwal IBM Jiawei Han UIUC.
Chapter 11 Statistical Techniques. Data Warehouse and Data Mining Chapter 11 2 Chapter Objectives  Understand when linear regression is an appropriate.
DOCUMENT UPDATE SUMMARIZATION USING INCREMENTAL HIERARCHICAL CLUSTERING CIKM’10 (DINGDING WANG, TAO LI) Advisor: Koh, Jia-Ling Presenter: Nonhlanhla Shongwe.
1 A Web Search Engine-Based Approach to Measure Semantic Similarity between Words Presenter: Guan-Yu Chen IEEE Trans. on Knowledge & Data Engineering,
Relational Duality: Unsupervised Extraction of Semantic Relations between Entities on the Web Danushka Bollegala Yutaka Matsuo Mitsuru Ishizuka International.
Improved Video Categorization from Text Metadata and User Comments ACM SIGIR 2011:Research and development in Information Retrieval - Katja Filippova -
Basic Machine Learning: Clustering CS 315 – Web Search and Data Mining 1.
Efficient Unsupervised Discovery of Word Categories Using Symmetric Patterns and High Frequency Words Dmitry Davidov, Ari Rappoport The Hebrew University.
Compact Query Term Selection Using Topically Related Text Date : 2013/10/09 Source : SIGIR’13 Authors : K. Tamsin Maxwell, W. Bruce Croft Advisor : Dr.Jia-ling,
1 Friends and Neighbors on the Web Presentation for Web Information Retrieval Bruno Lepri.
Event-Based Extractive Summarization E. Filatova and V. Hatzivassiloglou Department of Computer Science Columbia University (ACL 2004)
The Canopies Algorithm from “Efficient Clustering of High-Dimensional Data Sets with Application to Reference Matching” Andrew McCallum, Kamal Nigam, Lyle.
Instance Discovery and Schema Matching With Applications to Biological Deep Web Data Integration Tantan Liu, Fan Wang, Gagan Agrawal {liut, wangfa,
Incremental Text Structuring with Hierarchical Ranking Erdong Chen Benjamin Snyder Regina Barzilay.
Sentiment Analysis Using Common- Sense and Context Information Basant Agarwal 1,2, Namita Mittal 2, Pooja Bansal 2, and Sonal Garg 2 1 Department of Computer.
1 Query Directed Web Page Clustering Daniel Crabtree Peter Andreae, Xiaoying Gao Victoria University of Wellington.
EE368 Final Project Spring 2003
2016/9/301 Exploiting Wikipedia as External Knowledge for Document Clustering Xiaohua Hu, Xiaodan Zhang, Caimei Lu, E. K. Park, and Xiaohua Zhou Proceeding.
User Modeling for Personal Assistant
Linguistic Graph Similarity for News Sentence Searching
Using lexical chains for keyword extraction
Simone Paolo Ponzetto University of Heidelberg Massimo Poesio
Web News Sentence Searching Using Linguistic Graph Similarity
Data Integration for Relational Web
N-Gram Model Formulas Word sequences Chain rule of probability
International Marketing and Output Database Conference 2005
Text Categorization Berlin Chen 2003 Reference:
Introduction to Sensor Interpretation
Topological Signatures For Fast Mobility Analysis
Introduction to Sensor Interpretation
Presented by Nick Janus
Presentation transcript:

Multi-Document Person Name Resolution Michael Ben Fleischman (MIT), Eduard Hovy (USC) From Proceedings of ACL-42 Reference Resolution workshop 2004

Abstract Determine if two instances with the same name from different documents refer to the same individual Use Maximum Entropy model to give the probability that two names refer to the same individual Apply modified agglomerative clustering technique to partition the instances

Related Work Mann and Yarowsky (2003) –Bag of words, biographic information –clustering task –output two clusters Bagga and Baldwin (1998) –within-document coreference resolution –Text surrounding each reference chain –vector space model

Data 2 million concept-instance pairs from ACL dataset –e.g. (president of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton) They randomly selected 2675 pairs. Each of them was matched with another concept- instance pair that had an identical instance name, but a different concept name for training (84%) 400 for developing (85.5%) 400 for testing (83.5%)

Features (1) Name features Web features Overlap features Semantic features Estimated statistics features

Features (2) Name: –Name-common, freq of name in census data –Name-Fame, freq of name in ACL dataset –Web-Fame, num of hits in google Web: –Web Intersection, the # of hits from query (name + head1 + head2) –Web Difference, abs ((name + head1) – (name + head2)) –Web Ratio, (name + head1 + head2)/((name + head1) + (name + head2))

Features (3) Overlap features: –Sentence-Count, # of words common to context of both instances –Sentence-TF, as above but weighted by term frequency –Concept-Count –Concept-TF Semantic features: –They employ five metrics described in the literature that use WordNet to determine a semantic distance –JCN, HSO, LCH, Lin, Res

Features (4) Estimated statistics features: –Concept information is very useful. E.g. politician, lawyer –p(i1=i2 | i1->A, i2->B) –p(i1->A, i2->B | i1=i2) –p(i1->A | i2->B) + p(i2->B | i1->A) –p(i1->A, i2->B) / p(i1->A) + p(i2->B)

Maximum Entropy Model They model the probability of two instances having the same referent given a vector of features x according to a formulation

Experimental Results

Clustering (1) Use agglomerative clustering algorithm to cluster each pairs with identical names Build a fully connected graph G with vertex set D Label each edge in G with a score While the edge with max score in G > threshold, merge the two nodes connected by the edge For each node in the graph, merge the two edges connecting it to the newly merged node, and assign the new edge a score equal to the avg. of the two old edge scores

Clustering (2) The final output of this algorithm is a new graph in which each node represents a single referent associated with a set of concept-instance pairs. It is free to choose a different number of referents for each instance name.

Experimental Design They randomly selected a set of 31 instance names from the ACL dataset, 11 of which referred to multiple individuals and 20 of which had only a single referent. They use a simple clustering accuracy as their performance metric. They compare their algorithm with two baseline systems.

Results

Conclusion They have presented a two-step methodology. This algorithm allows for dynamically set number of referents, and outperforms two baseline methods.