Learning to Extract Keyphrases from Text

Many academic journals ask their authors to provide a list of about five to fifteen key words, to appear on the first page of each article. Since these key words are often phrases of two or more words, we prefer to call them keyphrases. There is a surprisingly wide variety of tasks for which keyphrases are useful, as we discuss in this paper. Recent commercial software, such as Microsoft?s Word 97 and Verity?s Search 97, includes algorithms that automatically extract keyphrases from documents. In this paper, we approach the problem of automatically extracting keyphrases from text as a supervised learning task. We treat a document as a set of phrases, which the learning algorithm must learn to classify as positive or negative examples of keyphrases. Our first set of experiments applies the C4.5 decision tree induction algorithm to this learning task. The second set of experiments applies the GenEx algorithm to the task. We developed the GenEx algorithm specifically for this task. The third set of experiments examines the performance of GenEx on the task of metadata generation, relative to the performance of Microsoft?s Word 97. The fourth and final set of experiments investigates the performance of GenEx on the task of highlighting, relative to Verity?s Search 97. The experimental results support the claim that a specialized learning algorithm (GenEx) can generate better keyphrases than a general-purpose learning algorithm (C4.5) and the non-learning algorithms that are used in commercial software (Word 97 and Search 97)

Extraction of Keyphrases from Text: Evaluation of Four Algorithms

This report presents an empirical evaluation of four algorithms for automatically extracting keywords and keyphrases from documents. The four algorithms are compared using five different collections of documents. For each document, we have a target set of keyphrases, which were generated by hand. The target keyphrases were generated for human readers; they were not tailored for any of the four keyphrase extraction algorithms. Each of the algorithms was evaluated by the degree to which the algorithm’s keyphrases matched the manually generated keyphrases. The four algorithms were (1) the AutoSummarize feature in Microsoft’s Word 97, (2) an algorithm based on Eric Brill’s part-of-speech tagger, (3) the Summarize feature in Verity’s Search 97, and (4) NRC’s Extractor algorithm. For all five document collections, NRC’s Extractor yields the best match with the manually generated keyphrases

Learning algorithms for keyphrase extraction

Many academic journals ask their authors to provide a list of about five to fifteen keywords, to appear on the first page of each article. Since these key words are often phrases of two or more words, we prefer to call them keyphrases. There is a wide variety of tasks for which keyphrases are useful, as we discuss in this paper. We approach the problem of automatically extracting keyphrases from text as a supervised learning task. We treat a document as a set of phrases, which the learning algorithm must learn to classify as positive or negative examples of keyphrases. Our first set of experiments applies the C4.5 decision tree induction algorithm to this learning task. We evaluate the performance of nine different configurations of C4.5. The second set of experiments applies the GenEx algorithm to the task. We developed the GenEx algorithm specifically for automatically extracting keyphrases from text. The experimental results support the claim that a custom-designed algorithm (GenEx), incorporating specialized procedural domain knowledge, can generate better keyphrases than a general-purpose algorithm (C4.5). Subjective human evaluation of the keyphrases generated by GenEx suggests that about 80% of the keyphrases are acceptable to human readers. This level of performance should be satisfactory for a wide variety of applications

Automatic taxonomy evaluation

This thesis would not be made possible without the generous support of IATA.Les taxonomies sont une représentation essentielle des connaissances, jouant un rôle central dans de nombreuses applications riches en connaissances. Malgré cela, leur construction est laborieuse que ce soit manuellement ou automatiquement, et l'évaluation quantitative de taxonomies est un sujet négligé. Lorsque les chercheurs se concentrent sur la construction d'une taxonomie à partir de grands corpus non structurés, l'évaluation est faite souvent manuellement, ce qui implique des biais et se traduit souvent par une reproductibilité limitée. Les entreprises qui souhaitent améliorer leur taxonomie manquent souvent d'étalon ou de référence, une sorte de taxonomie bien optimisée pouvant service de référence. Par conséquent, des connaissances et des efforts spécialisés sont nécessaires pour évaluer une taxonomie. Dans ce travail, nous soutenons que l'évaluation d'une taxonomie effectuée automatiquement et de manière reproductible est aussi importante que la génération automatique de telles taxonomies. Nous proposons deux nouvelles méthodes d'évaluation qui produisent des scores moins biaisés: un modèle de classification de la taxonomie extraite d'un corpus étiqueté, et un modèle de langue non supervisé qui sert de source de connaissances pour évaluer les relations hyperonymiques. Nous constatons que nos substituts d'évaluation corrèlent avec les jugements humains et que les modèles de langue pourraient imiter les experts humains dans les tâches riches en connaissances.Taxonomies are an essential knowledge representation and play an important role in classification and numerous knowledge-rich applications, yet quantitative taxonomy evaluation remains to be overlooked and left much to be desired. While studies focus on automatic taxonomy construction (ATC) for extracting meaningful structures and semantics from large corpora, their evaluation is usually manual and subject to bias and low reproducibility. Companies wishing to improve their domain-focused taxonomies also suffer from lacking ground-truths. In fact, manual taxonomy evaluation requires substantial labour and expert knowledge. As a result, we argue in this thesis that automatic taxonomy evaluation (ATE) is just as important as taxonomy construction. We propose two novel taxonomy evaluation methods for automatic taxonomy scoring, leveraging supervised classification for labelled corpora and unsupervised language modelling as a knowledge source for unlabelled data. We show that our evaluation proxies can exert similar effects and correlate well with human judgments and that language models can imitate human experts on knowledge-rich tasks