Slide1: Named Entity Recognition http://gate.ac.uk/ http://nlp.shef.ac.uk/ Hamish Cunningham Kalina Bontcheva RANLP, Borovets, Bulgaria, 8th September 2003


Slide2: Structure of the Tutorial task definition applications corpora, annotation evaluation and testing how to preprocessing approaches to NE baseline rule-based approaches learning-based approaches multilinguality future challenges


Information Extraction: Information Extraction Information Extraction (IE) pulls facts and structured information from the content of large text collections. IR - IE - NLU MUC: Message Understanding Conferences ACE: Automatic Content Extraction


MUC-7 tasks: MUC-7 tasks NE: Named Entity recognition and typing CO: co-reference resolution TE: Template Elements TR: Template Relations ST: Scenario Templates


An Example: An Example The shiny red rocket was fired on Tuesday. It is the brainchild of Dr. Big Head. Dr. Head is a staff scientist at We Build Rockets Inc. NE: entities are "rocket", "Tuesday", "Dr. Head" and "We Build Rockets" CO: "it" refers to the rocket; "Dr. Head" and "Dr. Big Head" are the same TE: the rocket is "shiny red" and Head's "brainchild". TR: Dr. Head works for We Build Rockets Inc. ST: a rocket launching event occurred with the various participants.


Performance levels: Performance levels Vary according to text type, domain, scenario, language NE: up to 97% (tested in English, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese) CO: 60-70% resolution TE: 80% TR: 75-80% ST: 60% (but: human level may be only 80%)


What are Named Entities?: What are Named Entities? NER involves identification of proper names in texts, and classification into a set of predefined categories of interest Person names Organizations (companies, government organisations, committees, etc) Locations (cities, countries, rivers, etc) Date and time expressions


What are Named Entities (2): What are Named Entities (2) Other common types: measures (percent, money, weight etc), email addresses, Web addresses, street addresses, etc. Some domain-specific entities: names of drugs, medical conditions, names of ships, bibliographic references etc. MUC-7 entity definition guidelines [Chinchor’97] http://www.itl.nist.gov/iaui/894.02/related_projects/muc/proceedings/ne_task.html


What are NOT NEs (MUC-7): What are NOT NEs (MUC-7) Artefacts – Wall Street Journal Common nouns, referring to named entities – the company, the committee Names of groups of people and things named after people – the Tories, the Nobel prize Adjectives derived from names – Bulgarian, Chinese Numbers which are not times, dates, percentages, and money amounts


Basic Problems in NE: Basic Problems in NE Variation of NEs – e.g. John Smith, Mr Smith, John. Ambiguity of NE types: John Smith (company vs. person) May (person vs. month) Washington (person vs. location) 1945 (date vs. time) Ambiguity with common words, e.g. "may"


More complex problems in NE: More complex problems in NE Issues of style, structure, domain, genre etc. Punctuation, spelling, spacing, formatting, ... all have an impact: Dept. of Computing and Maths Manchester Metropolitan University Manchester United Kingdom Tell me more about Leonardo Da Vinci


Slide12: Structure of the Tutorial task definition applications corpora, annotation evaluation and testing how to preprocessing approaches to NE baseline rule-based approaches learning-based approaches multilinguality future challenges


Applications: Applications Can help summarisation, ASR and MT Intelligent document access Browse document collections by the entities that occur in them Formulate more complex queries than IR can answer Example application domains: News Scientific articles, e.g, MEDLINE abstracts


Application -Threat tracker: Application -Threat tracker Search by entity: http://www.alias-i.com/iraq/feature_description/entity_search.html


Application Example - KIM: Application Example - KIM Browsing by entity and ontology: http://www.ontotext.com/kim


Application Example - KIM: Application Example - KIM Ontotext’s KIM formal query over OWL (including relations between entities) and results


Application Example - Perseus: Application Example - Perseus Time-line and geographic visualisation: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/


Slide18: Structure of the Tutorial task definition applications corpora, annotation evaluation and testing how to preprocessing approaches to NE baseline rule-based approaches learning-based approaches multilinguality future challenges


Some NE Annotated Corpora: Some NE Annotated Corpora MUC-6 and MUC-7 corpora - English CONLL shared task corpora http://cnts.uia.ac.be/conll2003/ner/ - NEs in English and German http://cnts.uia.ac.be/conll2002/ner/ - NEs in Spanish and Dutch TIDES surprise language exercise (NEs in Cebuano and Hindi) ACE – English - http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Projects/ACE/


The MUC-7 corpus: The MUC-7 corpus 100 documents in SGML News domain 1880 Organizations (46%) 1324 Locations (32%) 887 Persons (22%) Inter-annotator agreement very high (~97%) http://www.itl.nist.gov/iaui/894.02/related_projects/muc/proceedings/muc_7_proceedings/marsh_slides.pdf


The MUC-7 Corpus (2): The MUC-7 Corpus (2) CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. &MD; Working in chilly temperatures Wednesday night, NASA ground crews readied the space shuttle Endeavour for launch on a Japanese satellite retrieval mission. Endeavour, with an international crew of six, was set to blast off from the Kennedy Space Center on Thursday at 4:18 a.m. EST, the start of a 49-minute launching period. The nine day shuttle flight was to be the 12th launched in darkness.


NE Annotation Tools - Alembic: NE Annotation Tools - Alembic


NE Annotation Tools – Alembic (2): NE Annotation Tools – Alembic (2)


NE Annotation Tools - GATE: NE Annotation Tools - GATE


Corpora and System Development: Corpora and System Development Corpora are divided typically into a training and testing portion Rules/Learning algorithms are trained on the training part Tuned on the testing portion in order to optimise Rule priorities, rules effectiveness, etc. Parameters of the learning algorithm and the features used Evaluation set – the best system configuration is run on this data and the system performance is obtained No further tuning once evaluation set is used!


Slide26: Structure of the Tutorial task definition applications corpora, annotation evaluation and testing how to preprocessing approaches to NE baseline rule-based approaches learning-based approaches multilinguality future challenges


Performance Evaluation: Performance Evaluation Evaluation metric – mathematically defines how to measure the system’s performance against a human-annotated, gold standard Scoring program – implements the metric and provides performance measures For each document and over the entire corpus For each type of NE


The Evaluation Metric: The Evaluation Metric Precision = correct answers/answers produced Recall = correct answers/total possible correct answers Trade-off between precision and recall F-Measure = (β2 + 1)PR / β2R + P [van Rijsbergen 75] β reflects the weighting between precision and recall, typically β=1


The Evaluation Metric (2): The Evaluation Metric (2) We may also want to take account of partially correct answers: Precision = Correct + ½ Partially correct Correct + Incorrect + Partial Recall = Correct + ½ Partially correct Correct + Missing + Partial Why: NE boundaries are often misplaced, so some partially correct results


The MUC scorer (1): The MUC scorer (1) Document: 9601020572 ----------------------------------------------------------------- POS ACT| COR PAR INC | MIS SPU NON| REC PRE ------------------------+-------------+--------------+----------- SUBTASK SCORES | | | enamex | | | organization 11 12| 9 0 0| 2 3 0| 82 75 person 24 26| 24 0 0| 0 2 0| 100 92 location 27 31| 25 0 0| 2 6 0| 93 81 … * * * SUMMARY SCORES * * * ----------------------------------------------------------------- POS ACT| COR PAR INC | MIS SPU NON| REC PRE -----------------------+-------------+--------------+------------ TASK SCORES | | | enamex | | | organizatio 1855 1757|1553 0 37| 265 167 30| 84 88 person 883 859| 797 0 13| 73 49 4| 90 93 location 1322 1406|1199 0 13| 110 194 7| 91 85


The MUC scorer (2): The MUC scorer (2) Using the detailed report we can track errors in each document, for each NE in the text ENAMEX cor inc PERSON PERSON "Wernher von Braun" "Braun" ENAMEX cor inc PERSON PERSON "von Braun" "Braun" ENAMEX cor cor PERSON PERSON "Braun" "Braun" … ENAMEX cor cor LOCATI LOCATI "Saturn" "Saturn" …


The GATE Evaluation Tool: The GATE Evaluation Tool


Regression Testing: Regression Testing Need to track system’s performance over time When a change is made to the system we want to know what implications are over the entire corpus Why: because an improvement in one case can lead to problems in others GATE offers automated tool to help with the NE development task over time


Regression Testing (2): Regression Testing (2) At corpus level – GATE’s corpus benchmark tool – tracking system’s performance over time


Slide35: Structure of the Tutorial task definition applications corpora, annotation evaluation and testing how to preprocessing approaches to NE baseline rule-based approaches learning-based approaches multilinguality future challenges


Pre-processing for NE Recognition: Pre-processing for NE Recognition Format detection Word segmentation (for languages like Chinese) Tokenisation Sentence splitting POS tagging


Two kinds of NE approaches: Two kinds of NE approaches Knowledge Engineering rule based developed by experienced language engineers make use of human intuition requires only small amount of training data development could be very time consuming some changes may be hard to accommodate Learning Systems use statistics or other machine learning developers do not need LE expertise requires large amounts of annotated training data some changes may require re-annotation of the entire training corpus annotators are cheap (but you get what you pay for!)


Baseline: list lookup approach: Baseline: list lookup approach System that recognises only entities stored in its lists (gazetteers). Advantages - Simple, fast, language independent, easy to retarget (just create lists) Disadvantages – impossible to enumerate all names, collection and maintenance of lists, cannot deal with name variants, cannot resolve ambiguity


Creating Gazetteer Lists: Creating Gazetteer Lists Online phone directories and yellow pages for person and organisation names (e.g. [Paskaleva02]) Locations lists US GEOnet Names Server (GNS) data – 3.9 million locations with 5.37 million names (e.g., [Manov03]) UN site: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/citydata Global Discovery database from Europa technologies Ltd, UK (e.g., [Ignat03]) Automatic collection from annotated training data


Slide40: Structure of the Tutorial task definition applications corpora, annotation evaluation and testing how to preprocessing approaches to NE baseline rule-based approaches learning-based approaches multilinguality future challenges


Shallow Parsing Approach (internal structure): Shallow Parsing Approach (internal structure) Internal evidence – names often have internal structure. These components can be either stored or guessed, e.g. location: Cap. Word + {City, Forest, Center, River} e.g. Sherwood Forest Cap. Word + {Street, Boulevard, Avenue, Crescent, Road} e.g. Portobello Street


Problems with the shallow parsing approach: Problems with the shallow parsing approach Ambiguously capitalised words (first word in sentence) [All American Bank] vs. All [State Police] Semantic ambiguity "John F. Kennedy" = airport (location) "Philip Morris" = organisation Structural ambiguity [Cable and Wireless] vs. [Microsoft] and [Dell]; [Center for Computational Linguistics] vs. message from [City Hospital] for [John Smith]


Shallow Parsing Approach with Context: Shallow Parsing Approach with Context Use of context-based patterns is helpful in ambiguous cases "David Walton" and "Goldman Sachs" are indistinguishable But with the phrase "David Walton of Goldman Sachs" and the Person entity "David Walton" recognised, we can use the pattern "[Person] of [Organization]" to identify "Goldman Sachs“ correctly.


Identification of Contextual Information: Identification of Contextual Information Use KWIC index and concordancer to find windows of context around entities Search for repeated contextual patterns of either strings, other entities, or both Manually post-edit list of patterns, and incorporate useful patterns into new rules Repeat with new entities


Examples of context patterns: Examples of context patterns [PERSON] earns [MONEY] [PERSON] joined [ORGANIZATION] [PERSON] left [ORGANIZATION] [PERSON] joined [ORGANIZATION] as [JOBTITLE] [ORGANIZATION]'s [JOBTITLE] [PERSON] [ORGANIZATION] [JOBTITLE] [PERSON] the [ORGANIZATION] [JOBTITLE] part of the [ORGANIZATION] [ORGANIZATION] headquarters in [LOCATION] price of [ORGANIZATION] sale of [ORGANIZATION] investors in [ORGANIZATION] [ORGANIZATION] is worth [MONEY] [JOBTITLE] [PERSON] [PERSON], [JOBTITLE]


Caveats: Caveats Patterns are only indicators based on likelihood Can set priorities based on frequency thresholds Need training data for each domain More semantic information would be useful (e.g. to cluster groups of verbs)


Rule-based Example: FACILE : Rule-based Example: FACILE FACILE - used in MUC-7 [Black et al 98] Uses Inxight’s LinguistiX tools for tagging and morphological analysis Database for external information, role similar to a gazetteer Linguistic info per token, encoded as feature vector: Text offsets Orthographic pattern (first/all capitals, mixed, lowercase) Token and its normalised form Syntax – category and features Semantics – from database or morphological analysis Morphological analyses Example: (1192 1196 10 T C "Mrs." "mrs." (PROP TITLE) (ˆPER_CIV_F) (("Mrs." "Title" "Abbr")) NIL) PER_CIV_F – female civilian (from database)


FACILE (2): FACILE (2) Context-sensitive rules written in special rule notation, executed by an interpreter Writing rules in PERL is too error-prone and hard Rules of the kind: A => B\C/D, where: A is a set of attribute-value expressions and optional score, the attributes refer to elements of the input token feature vector B and D are left and right context respectively and can be empty B, C, D are sequences of attribute-value pairs and Klene regular expression operations; variables are also supported [syn=NP, sem=ORG] (0.9) => \ [norm="university"], [token="of"], [sem=REGION|COUNTRY|CITY] / ;


FACILE (3): FACILE (3) # Rule for the mark up of person names when the first name is not # present or known from the gazetteers: e.g 'Mr J. Cass', [SYN=PROP,SEM=PER, FIRST=_F, INITIALS=_I, MIDDLE=_M, LAST=_S] #_F, _I, _M, _S are variables, transfer info from RHS => [SEM=TITLE_MIL|TITLE_FEMALE|TITLE_MALE] \[SYN=NAME, ORTH=I|O, TOKEN=_I]?, [ORTH=C|A, SYN=PROP, TOKEN=_F]?, [SYN=NAME, ORTH=I|O, TOKEN=_I]?, [SYN=NAME, TOKEN=_M]?, [ORTH=C|A|O,SYN=PROP,TOKEN=_S, SOURCE!=RULE] #proper name, not recognised by a rule /;


FACILE (4): FACILE (4) Preference mechanism: The rule with the highest score is preferred Longer matches are preferred to shorter matches Results are always one semantic categorisation of the named entity in the text Evaluation (MUC-7 scores): Organization: 86% precision, 66% recall Person: 90% precision, 88% recall Location: 81% precision, 80% recall Dates: 93% precision, 86% recall


Example Rule-based System - ANNIE: Example Rule-based System - ANNIE Created as part of GATE GATE – Sheffield’s open-source infrastructure for language processing GATE automatically deals with document formats, saving of results, evaluation, and visualisation of results for debugging GATE has a finite-state pattern-action rule language, used by ANNIE ANNIE modified for MUC guidelines – 89.5% f-measure on MUC-7 corpus


Slide52: NE Components The ANNIE system – a reusable and easily extendable set of components


Gazetteer lists for rule-based NE: Gazetteer lists for rule-based NE Needed to store the indicator strings for the internal structure and context rules Internal location indicators – e.g., {river, mountain, forest} for natural locations; {street, road, crescent, place, square, …}for address locations Internal organisation indicators – e.g., company designators {GmbH, Ltd, Inc, …} Produces Lookup results of the given kind


The Named Entity Grammars: The Named Entity Grammars Phases run sequentially and constitute a cascade of FSTs over the pre-processing results Hand-coded rules applied to annotations to identify NEs Annotations from format analysis, tokeniser, sentence splitter, POS tagger, and gazetteer modules Use of contextual information Finds person names, locations, organisations, dates, addresses.


Slide55:  NE Rule in JAPE JAPE: a Java Annotation Patterns Engine Light, robust regular-expression-based processing Cascaded finite state transduction Low-overhead development of new components Simplifies multi-phase regex processing Rule: Company1 Priority: 25 ( ( {Token.orthography == upperInitial} )+ //from tokeniser {Lookup.kind == companyDesignator} //from gazetteer lists ):match --> :match.NamedEntity = { kind=company, rule=“Company1” }


Slide56: Named Entities in GATE


Using co-reference to classify ambiguous NEs: Using co-reference to classify ambiguous NEs Orthographic co-reference module that matches proper names in a document Improves NE results by assigning entity type to previously unclassified names, based on relations with classified NEs May not reclassify already classified entities Classification of unknown entities very useful for surnames which match a full name, or abbreviations, e.g. [Bonfield] will match [Sir Peter Bonfield]; [International Business Machines Ltd.] will match [IBM]


Named Entity Coreference: Named Entity Coreference


DEMO: DEMO


Slide60: Structure of the Tutorial task definition applications corpora, annotation evaluation and testing how to preprocessing approaches to NE baseline rule-based approaches learning-based approaches multilinguality future challenges


Machine Learning Approaches: Machine Learning Approaches ML approaches frequently break down the NE task in two parts: Recognising the entity boundaries Classifying the entities in the NE categories Some work is only on one task or the other Tokens in text are often coded with the IOB scheme O – outside, B-XXX – first word in NE, I-XXX – all other words in NE Easy to convert to/from inline MUC-style markup Argentina B-LOC played O with O Del B-PER Bosque I-PER


IdentiFinder [Bikel et al 99]: IdentiFinder [Bikel et al 99] Based on Hidden Markov Models Features Capitalisation Numeric symbols Punctuation marks Position in the sentence 14 features in total, combining above info, e.g., containsDigitAndDash (09-96), containsDigitAndComma (23,000.00)


IdentiFinder (2): IdentiFinder (2) MUC-6 (English) and MET-1(Spanish) corpora used for evaluation Mixed case English IdentiFinder - 94.9% f-measure Best rule-based – 96.4% Spanish mixed case IdentiFinder – 90% Best rule-based - 93% Lower case names, noisy training data, less training data Training data: 650,000 words, but similar performance with half of the data. Less than 100,000 words reduce the performance to below 90% on English


MENE [Borthwick et al 98]: MENE [Borthwick et al 98] Combining rule-based and ML NE to achieve better performance Tokens tagged as: XXX_start, XXX_continue, XXX_end, XXX_unique, other (non-NE), where XXX is an NE category Uses Maximum Entropy One only needs to find the best features for the problem ME estimation routine finds the best relative weights for the features


MENE (2): MENE (2) Features Binary features – “token begins with capitalised letter”, “token is a four-digit number” Lexical features – dependencies on the surrounding tokens (window ±2) e.g., “Mr” for people, “to” for locations Dictionary features – equivalent to gazetteers (first names, company names, dates, abbreviations) External systems – whether the current token is recognised as an NE by a rule-based system


MENE (3): MENE (3) MUC-7 formal run corpus MENE – 84.2% f-measure Rule-based systems it uses – 86% - 91 % MENE + rule-based systems – 92% Learning curve 20 docs – 80.97% 40 docs – 84.14% 100 docs – 89.17% 425 docs – 92.94%


NE Recognition without Gazetteers [Mikheev et al 99]: NE Recognition without Gazetteers [Mikheev et al 99] How big should gazetteer lists be? Experiment with simple list lookup approach on MUC-7 corpus Learned lists – MUC-7 training corpus 1228 person names 809 organisations 770 locations Common lists (from the Web) 5000 locations 33,000 organisations 27,000 person names


NE Recognition without Gazetteers (2): NE Recognition without Gazetteers (2)


NE Recognition without Gazetteers (3): NE Recognition without Gazetteers (3) System combines rule-based grammars and statistical (MaxEnt) models Full gaz – 4900 LOC, 30,000 ORG, 10,000 PER Some locs – 200 countries + continents + 8 planets Ltd gaz – Some locs + lists inferred from 30 processed texts in the same domain


NE Recognition without Gazetteers (4): NE Recognition without Gazetteers (4)


Fine-grained Classification of NEs [Fleischman 02]: Fine-grained Classification of NEs [Fleischman 02] Finer-grained categorisation needed for applications like question answering Person classification into 8 sub-categories – athlete, politician/government, clergy, businessperson, entertainer/artist, lawyer, doctor/scientist, police. Approach using local context and global semantic information such as WordNet Used a decision list classifier and Identifinder to construct automatically training set from untagged data Held-out set of 1300 instances hand annotated


Fine-grained Classification of NEs (2): Fine-grained Classification of NEs (2) Word frequency features – how often the words surrounding the target instance occur with a specific category in training For each 8 categories 10 distinct word positions = 80 features per instance 3 words before & after the instance The two-word bigrams immediately before and after the instance The three-word trigrams before/after the instance


Fine-grained Classification of NEs (3): Fine-grained Classification of NEs (3) Topic signatures and WordNet information Compute lists of terms that signal relevance to a topic/category [Lin&Hovy 00] & expand with WordNet synonyms to counter unseen examples Politician – campaign, republican, budget The topic signature features convey information about the overall context in which each instance exists Due to differing contexts, instances of the same name in a single text were classified differently


Fine-grained Classification of NEs (4): Fine-grained Classification of NEs (4) MemRun chooses the prevailing sub-category based on their most frequent classification Othomatching-like algorithm is developed to match George Bush, Bush, and George W. Bush Expts with k-NN, Naïve Bayes, SVMs, Neural Networks and C4.5 show that C4.5 is best Expts with different feature configurations – 70.4% with all features discussed here Future work: treating finer grained classification as a WSD task (categories are different senses of a person)


Slide75: Structure of the Tutorial task definition applications corpora, annotation evaluation and testing how to preprocessing approaches to NE baseline rule-based approaches learning-based approaches multilinguality future challenges


Multilingual Named Entity Recognition: Multilingual Named Entity Recognition Recent experiments are aimed at NE recognition in multiple languages TIDES surprise language evaluation exercise measures how quickly researchers can develop NLP components in a new language CONLL’02, CONLL’03 focus on language-independent NE recognition


Analysis of the NE Task in Multiple Languages [Palmer&Day 97]: Analysis of the NE Task in Multiple Languages [Palmer&Day 97]


Analysis of Multilingual NE (2): Analysis of Multilingual NE (2) Numerical and time expressions are very easy to capture using rules Constitute together about 20-30% of all NEs All numerical expressions in the 6 languages required only 5 patterns Time expressions similarly require only a few rules (less than 30 per language) Many of these rules are reusable across the languages


Analysis of Multilingual NE (3): Analysis of Multilingual NE (3) Suggest a method for calculating the lower bound for system performance given a corpus in the target language Conclusion: Much of the NE task can be achieved by simple string analysis and common phrasal contexts Zipf’s law: the prevalence of frequent phenomena allow high scores to be achieved directly from the training data Chinese, Japanese, and Portuguese corpora had a lower bound above 70% Substantial further advances require language specificity


What is needed for multilingual NE: What is needed for multilingual NE Extensive support for non-Latin scripts and text encodings, including conversion utilities Automatic recognition of encoding [Ignat et al03] Occupied up to 2/3 of the TIDES Hindi effort Bi-lingual dictionaries Annotated corpus for evaluation Internet resources for gazetteer list collection (e.g., phone books, yellow pages, bi-lingual pages)


Multilingual support - Alembic: Multilingual support - Alembic Japanese example


Editing Multilingual Data:                       GATE Unicode Kit (GUK) Complements Java’s facilities Support for defining Input Methods (IMs) currently 30 IMs for 17 languages Pluggable in other applications (e.g. JEdit) Editing Multilingual Data


Slide83: Multilingual Data - GATE All processing, visualisation and editing tools use GUK


Gazetteer-based Approach to Multilingual NE [Ignat et al 03]: Gazetteer-based Approach to Multilingual NE [Ignat et al 03] Deals with locations only Even more ambiguity than in one language: Multiple places that share the same name, such as the fourteen cities and villages in the world called ‘Paris’ Place names that are also words in one or more languages, such as ‘And’ (Iran), ‘Split’ (Croatia) Places have varying names in different languages (Italian ‘Venezia’ vs. English ‘Venice’, German ‘Venedig’, French ‘Venise’)


Gazetteer-based multilingual NE (2): Gazetteer-based multilingual NE (2) Disambiguation module applies heuristics based on location size and country mentions (prefer the locations from the country mentioned most) Performance evaluation: 853 locations from 80 English texts 96.8% precision 96.5% recall


Machine Learning for Multilingual NE: Machine Learning for Multilingual NE CONLL’2002 and 2003 shared tasks were NE in Spanish, Dutch, English, and German The most popular ML techniques used: Maximum Entropy (5 systems) Hidden Markov Models (4 systems) Connectionist methods (4 systems) Combining ML methods has been shown to boost results


ML for NE at CONLL (2): ML for NE at CONLL (2) The choice of features is at least as important as the choice of ML algorithm Lexical features (words) Part-of-speech Orthographic information Affixes Gazetteers External, unmarked data is useful to derive gazetteers and for extracting training instances


ML for NE at CONLL (3): ML for NE at CONLL (3) English (f-measure) Baseline - 59.5% (list lookup of entities with 1 class in training data) Systems – between 60.2% and 88.76% German (f-measure) Baseline – 30.3% Systems – between 47.7% and 72.4% Spanish (f-measure) Baseline – 35.9% Systems – between 60.9% and 81.4% Dutch (f-measure) Baseline – 53.1% Systems – between 56.4% and 77%


TIDES surprise language exercise: TIDES surprise language exercise Collaborative effort between a number of sites to develop resources and tools for various LE tasks on a surprise language Tasks: IE (including NE), machine translation, summarisation, cross-language IR Dry-run lasted 10 days on the Cebuano language from the Philippines Surprise language was Hindi, announced at the start of June 2003; duration 1 month


Language categorisation: Language categorisation LDC – survey of 300 largest languages (by population) to establish what resources are available http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Projects/TIDES/language-summary-table.html Classification dimensions: Dictionaries, news texts, parallel texts, e.g., Bible Script, orthography, words separated by spaces


The Surprise Languages: The Surprise Languages Cebuano: Latin script and words are spaced, but Few resources and little work, so Medium difficulty Hindi Non-latin script, different encodings used, words are spaced, no capitalisation Many resources available Medium difficulty


Named Entity Recognition for TIDES: Named Entity Recognition for TIDES Information on other systems and results from TIDES is still unavailable to non-TIDES participants Will be made available by the end of 2003 in a Special issue of ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing (TALIP). Rapid Development of Language Capabilities: The Surprise Languages The Sheffield approach is presented below, because it is not subject to these restrictions


Dictionary-based Adaptation of an English POS tagger: Dictionary-based Adaptation of an English POS tagger Substituted Hindi/Cebuano lexicon for English one in a Brill-like tagger Hindi/Cebuano lexicon derived from a bi-lingual dictionary Used empty ruleset since no training data available Used default heuristics (e.g. return NNP for capitalised words) Very experimental, but reasonable results


Evaluation of the Tagger: Evaluation of the Tagger No formal evaluation was possible Estimate around 67% accuracy on Hindi – evaluated by a native speaker on 1000 words Created in 2 person days Results and a tagging service made available to other researchers in TIDES Important pre-requisite for NE recognition


NE grammars: NE grammars Most English JAPE rules based on POS tags and gazetteer lookup Grammars can be reused for languages with similar word order, orthography etc. No time to make detailed study of Cebuano, but very similar in structure to English Most of the rules left as for English, but some adjustments to handle especially dates Used both English and Cebuano grammars and gazetteers, because NEs appear in both languages


Evaluation Results: Evaluation Results


Slide98: Structure of the Tutorial task definition applications corpora, annotation evaluation and testing how to preprocessing approaches to NE baseline rule-based approaches learning-based approaches multilinguality future challenges


Future challenges: Future challenges Towards semantic tagging of entities New evaluation metrics for semantic entity recognition Expanding the set of entities recognised – e.g., vehicles, weapons, substances (food, drug) Finer-grained hierarchies, e.g., types of Organizations (government, commercial, educational, etc.), Locations (regions, countries, cities, water, etc)


Future challenges (2): Future challenges (2) Standardisation of the annotation formats [Ide & Romary 02] – RDF-based annotation standards [Collier et al 02] – multi-lingual named entity annotation guidelines Aimed at defining how to annotate in order to make corpora more reusable and lower the overhead of writing format conversion tools MUC used inline markup TIDES and ACE used stand-off markup, but two different kinds (XML vs one-word per line)


Towards Semantic Tagging of Entities: Towards Semantic Tagging of Entities The MUC NE task tagged selected segments of text whenever that text represents the name of an entity. In ACE (Automated Content Extraction), these names are viewed as mentions of the underlying entities. The main task is to detect (or infer) the mentions in the text of the entities themselves. ACE focuses on domain- and genre-independent approaches ACE corpus contains newswire, broadcast news (ASR output and cleaned), and newspaper reports (OCR output and cleaned)


ACE Entities: ACE Entities Dealing with Proper names – e.g., England, Mr. Smith, IBM Pronouns – e.g., he, she, it Nominal mentions – the company, the spokesman Identify which mentions in the text refer to which entities, e.g., Tony Blair, Mr. Blair, he, the prime minister, he Gordon Brown, he, Mr. Brown, the chancellor


ACE Example: ACE Example


ACE Entities (2): ACE Entities (2) Some entities can have different roles, i.e., behave as Organizations, Locations, or Persons – GPEs (Geo-political entities) New York [GPE – role: Person], flush with Wall Street money, has a lot of loose change jangling in its pockets. All three New York [GPE – role: Location] regional commuter train systems were found to be punctual more than 90 percent of the time.


Further information on ACE: Further information on ACE ACE is a closed-evaluation initiative, which does not allow the publication of results Further information on guidelines and corpora is available at: http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Projects/ACE/ ACE also includes other IE tasks, for further details see Doug Appelt’s presentation: http://www.clsp.jhu.edu/ws03/groups/sparse/presentations/doug.ppt


Evaluating Richer NE Tagging: Evaluating Richer NE Tagging Need for new metrics when evaluating hierarchy/ontology-based NE tagging Need to take into account distance in the hierarchy Tagging a company as a charity is less wrong than tagging it as a person


Further Reading: Further Reading Aberdeen J., Day D., Hirschman L., Robinson P. and Vilain M. 1995. MITRE: Description of the Alembic System Used for MUC-6. MUC-6 proceedings. Pages141-155. Columbia, Maryland. 1995. Black W.J., Rinaldi F., Mowatt D. Facile: Description of the NE System Used For MUC-7. Proceedings of 7th Message Understanding Conference, Fairfax, VA, 19 April - 1 May, 1998. Borthwick. A. A Maximum Entropy Approach to Named Entity Recognition. PhD Dissertation. 1999 Bikel D., Schwarta R., Weischedel. R. An algorithm that learns what’s in a name. Machine Learning 34, pp.211-231, 1999 Carreras X., Màrquez L., Padró. 2002. Named Entity Extraction using AdaBoost. The 6th Conference on Natural Language Learning. 2002 Chang J.S., Chen S. D., Zheng Y., Liu X. Z., and Ke S. J. Large-corpus-based methods for Chinese personal name recognition. Journal of Chinese Information Processing, 6(3):7-15, 1992 Chen H.H., Ding Y.W., Tsai S.C. and Bian G.W. Description of the NTU System Used for MET2. Proceedings of 7th Message Understanding Conference, Fairfax, VA, 19 April - 1 May, 1998. Chinchor. N. MUC-7 Named Entity Task Definition Version 3.5. Available by from ftp.muc.saic.com/pub/MUC/MUC7-guidelines, 1997


Further reading (2): Further reading (2) Collins M., Singer Y. Unsupervised models for named entity classification In Proceedings of the Joint SIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora, 1999 Collins M. Ranking Algorithms for Named-Entity Extraction: Boosting and the Voted Perceptron. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the ACL, Philadelphia, pp. 489-496, July 2002 Gotoh Y., Renals S. Information extraction from broadcast news, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 2000. Grishman R. The NYU System for MUC-6 or Where's the Syntax? Proceedings of the MUC-6 workshop, Washington. November 1995. [Ign03a] C. Ignat and B. Pouliquen and A. Ribeiro and R. Steinberger. Extending and Information Extraction Tool Set to Eastern-European Languages. Proceedings of Workshop on Information Extraction for Slavonic and other Central and Eastern European Languages (IESL'03). 2003. Krupka G. R., Hausman K. IsoQuest Inc.: Description of the NetOwlTM Extractor System as Used for MUC-7. Proceedings of 7th Message Understanding Conference, Fairfax, VA, 19 April - 1 May, 1998. McDonald D. Internal and External Evidence in the Identification and Semantic Categorization of Proper Names. In B.Boguraev and J. Pustejovsky editors: Corpus Processing for Lexical Acquisition. Pages21-39. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. 1996 Mikheev A., Grover C. and Moens M. Description of the LTG System Used for MUC-7. Proceedings of 7th Message Understanding Conference, Fairfax, VA, 19 April - 1 May, 1998 Miller S., Crystal M., et al. BBN: Description of the SIFT System as Used for MUC-7. Proceedings of 7th Message Understanding Conference, Fairfax, VA, 19 April - 1 May, 1998


Further reading (3): Further reading (3) Palmer D., Day D.S. A Statistical Profile of the Named Entity Task. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Washington, D.C., March 31- April 3, 1997. Sekine S., Grishman R. and Shinou H. A decision tree method for finding and classifying names in Japanese texts. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Very Large Corpora, Montreal, Canada, 1998 Sun J., Gao J.F., Zhang L., Zhou M., Huang C.N. Chinese Named Entity Identification Using Class-based Language Model. In proceeding of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING2002), pp.967-973, 2002. Takeuchi K., Collier N. Use of Support Vector Machines in Extended Named Entity Recognition. The 6th Conference on Natural Language Learning. 2002 D.Maynard, K. Bontcheva and H. Cunningham. Towards a semantic extraction of named entities. Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, Bulgaria, 2003. M. M. Wood and S. J. Lydon and V. Tablan and D. Maynard and H. Cunningham. Using parallel texts to improve recall in IE. Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, Bulgaria, 2003. D.Maynard, V. Tablan and H. Cunningham. NE recognition without training data on a language you don't speak. ACL Workshop on Multilingual and Mixed-language Named Entity Recognition: Combining Statistical and Symbolic Models, Sapporo, Japan, 2003.


Further reading (4): Further reading (4) H. Saggion, H. Cunningham, K. Bontcheva, D. Maynard, O. Hamza, Y. Wilks. Multimedia Indexing through Multisource and Multilingual Information Extraction; the MUMIS project. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 2003. D. Manov and A. Kiryakov and B. Popov and K. Bontcheva and D. Maynard, H. Cunningham. Experiments with geographic knowledge for information extraction. Workshop on Analysis of Geographic References, HLT/NAACL'03, Canada, 2003. H. Cunningham, D. Maynard, K. Bontcheva, V. Tablan. GATE: A Framework and Graphical Development Environment for Robust NLP Tools and Applications. Proceedings of the 40th Anniversary Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'02). Philadelphia, July 2002. H. Cunningham. GATE, a General Architecture for Text Engineering. Computers and the Humanities, volume 36, pp. 223-254, 2002. D. Maynard, H. Cunningham, K. Bontcheva, M. Dimitrov. Adapting A Robust Multi-Genre NE System for Automatic Content Extraction. Proc. of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, Applications (AIMSA 2002), 2002. E. Paskaleva and G. Angelova and M.Yankova and K. Bontcheva and H. Cunningham and Y. Wilks. Slavonic Named Entities in GATE. 2003. CS-02-01. K. Pastra, D. Maynard, H. Cunningham, O. Hamza, Y. Wilks. How feasible is the reuse of grammars for Named Entity Recognition? Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC'2002), 2002.