D6.2 Integrated Final Version of the Components for Lexical Acquisition

The PANACEA project has addressed one of the most critical bottlenecks that threaten the development of technologies to support multilingualism in Europe, and to process the huge quantity of multilingual data produced annually. Any attempt at automated language processing, particularly Machine Translation (MT), depends on the availability of language-specific resources. Such Language Resources (LR) contain information about the language\u27s lexicon, i.e. the words of the language and the characteristics of their use. In Natural Language Processing (NLP), LRs contribute information about the syntactic and semantic behaviour of words - i.e. their grammar and their meaning - which inform downstream applications such as MT. To date, many LRs have been generated by hand, requiring significant manual labour from linguistic experts. However, proceeding manually, it is impossible to supply LRs for every possible pair of European languages, textual domain, and genre, which are needed by MT developers. Moreover, an LR for a given language can never be considered complete nor final because of the characteristics of natural language, which continually undergoes changes, especially spurred on by the emergence of new knowledge domains and new technologies. PANACEA has addressed this challenge by building a factory of LRs that progressively automates the stages involved in the acquisition, production, updating and maintenance of LRs required by MT systems. The existence of such a factory will significantly cut down the cost, time and human effort required to build LRs. WP6 has addressed the lexical acquisition component of the LR factory, that is, the techniques for automated extraction of key lexical information from texts, and the automatic collation of lexical information into LRs in a standardized format. The goal of WP6 has been to take existing techniques capable of acquiring syntactic and semantic information from corpus data, improving upon them, adapting and applying them to multiple languages, and turning them into powerful and flexible techniques capable of supporting massive applications. One focus for improving the scalability and portability of lexical acquisition techniques has been to extend exiting techniques with more powerful, less "supervised" methods. In NLP, the amount of supervision refers to the amount of manual annotation which must be applied to a text corpus before machine learning or other techniques are applied to the data to compile a lexicon. More manual annotation means more accurate training data, and thus a more accurate LR. However, given that it is impractical from a cost and time perspective to manually annotate the vast amounts of data required for multilingual MT across domains, it is important to develop techniques which can learn from corpora with less supervision. Less supervised methods are capable of supporting both large-scale acquisition and efficient domain adaptation, even in the domains where data is scarce. Another focus of lexical acquisition in PANACEA has been the need of LR users to tune the accuracy level of LRs. Some applications may require increased precision, or accuracy, where the application requires a high degree of confidence in the lexical information used. At other times a greater level of coverage may be required, with information about more words at the expense of some degree of accuracy. Lexical acquisition in PANACEA has investigated confidence thresholds for lexical acquisition to ensure that the ultimate users of LRs can generate lexical data from the PANACEA factory at the desired level of accuracy

Acquisition and evaluation of verb subcategorization resources for biomedicine

AbstractBackgroundBiomedical natural language processing (NLP) applications that have access to detailed resources about the linguistic characteristics of biomedical language demonstrate improved performance on tasks such as relation extraction and syntactic or semantic parsing. Such applications are important for transforming the growing unstructured information buried in the biomedical literature into structured, actionable information. In this paper, we address the creation of linguistic resources that capture how individual biomedical verbs behave. We specifically consider verb subcategorization, or the tendency of verbs to “select” co-occurrence with particular phrase types, which influences the interpretation of verbs and identification of verbal arguments in context. There are currently a limited number of biomedical resources containing information about subcategorization frames (SCFs), and these are the result of either labor-intensive manual collation, or automatic methods that use tools adapted to a single biomedical subdomain. Either method may result in resources that lack coverage. Moreover, the quality of existing verb SCF resources for biomedicine is unknown, due to a lack of available gold standards for evaluation.ResultsThis paper presents three new resources related to verb subcategorization frames in biomedicine, and four experiments making use of the new resources. We present the first biomedical SCF gold standards, capturing two different but widely-used definitions of subcategorization, and a new SCF lexicon, BioCat, covering a large number of biomedical sub-domains. We evaluate the SCF acquisition methodologies for BioCat with respect to the gold standards, and compare the results with the accuracy of the only previously existing automatically-acquired SCF lexicon for biomedicine, the BioLexicon. Our results show that the BioLexicon has greater precision while BioCat has better coverage of SCFs. Finally, we explore the definition of subcategorization using these resources and its implications for biomedical NLP. All resources are made publicly available.ConclusionThe SCF resources we have evaluated still show considerably lower accuracy than that reported with general English lexicons, demonstrating the need for domain- and subdomain-specific SCF acquisition tools for biomedicine. Our new gold standards reveal major differences when annotators use the different definitions. Moreover, evaluation of BioCat yields major differences in accuracy depending on the gold standard, demonstrating that the definition of subcategorization adopted will have a direct impact on perceived system accuracy for specific tasks