Edit Page
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The authors didn't study the impact of this on coreference resolution but they did it for perplexity and narrative cloze. Removing FrameNet mapping increases perplexity (Table 3) and decreases MRR and Recall@30 (Table 4). |
The authors didn't study the impact of this on coreference resolution but they did it for perplexity and narrative cloze. Removing FrameNet mapping increases perplexity (Table 3) and decreases MRR and Recall@30 (Table 4). |
||
| ⚫ | ''Compound frames (verb compounds):'' IMHO, this is an important invention of Peng and Roth. For example, in the simple sentence: "He wants to see me", a naive analysis would generate two frames: want (A0=he, A1=to see me), see (A0=he, A1=me). This analysis may be correct in SRL theory but is not so informative: he hasn't seen me yet and pretending so will create wrong features, "want" carries very little meaning and "to see me" is a complex expression that resists NLP analysis so far. |
||
| − | '''Augmenting:''' This is important to capture the true meaning of a predicate. "1) if a preposition immediately follows a predicate, we append the preposition to the predicate e.g. “take over”; 2) if we encounter the semantic role label AM-PRD which indicates a secondary predicate, we also ap- pend this secondary predicate to the main predicate e.g. “be happy”; 3) if we see the semantic role label AM-NEG which indicates negation, we append “not” to the predicate e.g. “not like”. These three augmentations can co-exist and they allowus to model more fine-grained semantic frames." |
||
| − | |||
| ⚫ | |||
The authors state: "We apply the rule that if the gap between two predicates is less than two tokens, we treat them as a unified semantic frame defined by the conjunction of the two (augmented) semantic frames, e.g. “eat.01-drink.01” and “decide.01-buy.01”." |
The authors state: "We apply the rule that if the gap between two predicates is less than two tokens, we treat them as a unified semantic frame defined by the conjunction of the two (augmented) semantic frames, e.g. “eat.01-drink.01” and “decide.01-buy.01”." |
||
| − | The number of compounds are substantial: half of single frames for FC and a third for EC |
+ | The number of compounds are substantial: half of single frames for FC and a third for EC.{{Q|Why so? How do they determine the arguments of compound frames?}}The authors don't include linking prepositions and conjunctions in the representation of compound frames.Are they important? |
| − | |||
| − | Looks like '''arguments''' are concatenated to frames: "we denote fa = f#Arg when referring to an argument role label (Arg) inside a frame (f)." fa's are used for EC only (actually, they are well-defined for EC only). Interestingly, the number of single frames in EC is smaller than FC.{{Q|Is it because so many frames aren't attached to an interesting entity?}} |
||
=== Discourse markers === |
=== Discourse markers === |
||