D6.1: Technologies and Tools for Lexical Acquisition

This report describes the technologies and tools to be used for Lexical Acquisition in PANACEA. It includes descriptions of existing technologies and tools which can be built on and improved within PANACEA, as well as of new technologies and tools to be developed and integrated in PANACEA platform. The report also specifies the Lexical Resources to be produced. Four main areas of lexical acquisition are included: Subcategorization frames (SCFs), Selectional Preferences (SPs), Lexical-semantic Classes (LCs), for both nouns and verbs, and Multi-Word Expressions (MWEs)

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

Ontology Enrichment from Free-text Clinical Documents: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches

While the biomedical informatics community widely acknowledges the utility of domain ontologies, there remain many barriers to their effective use. One important requirement of domain ontologies is that they achieve a high degree of coverage of the domain concepts and concept relationships. However, the development of these ontologies is typically a manual, time-consuming, and often error-prone process. Limited resources result in missing concepts and relationships, as well as difficulty in updating the ontology as domain knowledge changes. Methodologies developed in the fields of Natural Language Processing (NLP), Information Extraction (IE), Information Retrieval (IR), and Machine Learning (ML) provide techniques for automating the enrichment of ontology from free-text documents. In this dissertation, I extended these methodologies into biomedical ontology development. First, I reviewed existing methodologies and systems developed in the fields of NLP, IR, and IE, and discussed how existing methods can benefit the development of biomedical ontologies. This previously unconducted review was published in the Journal of Biomedical Informatics. Second, I compared the effectiveness of three methods from two different approaches, the symbolic (the Hearst method) and the statistical (the Church and Lin methods), using clinical free-text documents. Third, I developed a methodological framework for Ontology Learning (OL) evaluation and comparison. This framework permits evaluation of the two types of OL approaches that include three OL methods. The significance of this work is as follows: 1) The results from the comparative study showed the potential of these methods for biomedical ontology enrichment. For the two targeted domains (NCIT and RadLex), the Hearst method revealed an average of 21% and 11% new concept acceptance rates, respectively. The Lin method produced a 74% acceptance rate for NCIT; the Church method, 53%. As a result of this study (published in the Journal of Methods of Information in Medicine), many suggested candidates have been incorporated into the NCIT; 2) The evaluation framework is flexible and general enough that it can analyze the performance of ontology enrichment methods for many domains, thus expediting the process of automation and minimizing the likelihood that key concepts and relationships would be missed as domain knowledge evolves

Proceedings of the Workshop Semantic Content Acquisition and Representation (SCAR) 2007

This is the proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Content Acquisition and Representation, held in conjunction with NODALIDA 2007, on May 24 2007 in Tartu, Estonia.</p

Ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri:learning from texts

The use of ontologies as representations of knowledge is widespread but their construction, until recently, has been entirely manual. We argue in this paper for the use of text corpora and automated natural language processing methods for the construction of ontologies. We delineate the challenges and present criteria for the selection of appropriate methods. We distinguish three ma jor steps in ontology building: associating terms, constructing hierarchies and labelling relations. A number of methods are presented for these purposes but we conclude that the issue of data-sparsity still is a ma jor challenge. We argue for the use of resources external tot he domain specific corpus