科技创新2030 —— “新一代人工智能”重大项目(2018AAA0101901)
国家重点研发计划项目(2018YFB100- 5103)
国家自然科学基金重点项目(61632011)
国家自然科学基金面上项目(61772156,61976073)
黑龙江省面上项目(F2018013)
[1] Sarawagi S. Information Extraction. FNT Databases, 2007, 1: 261-377 CrossRef Google Scholar
[2] Riloff E. Automatically constructing a dictionary for information extraction tasks. In: Proceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, 1993. 811--816. Google Scholar
[3] Jun-Tae Kim , Moldovan D I. Acquisition of linguistic patterns for knowledge-based information extraction. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, 1995, 7: 713-724 CrossRef Google Scholar
[4] Chai J Y. Learning and generalization in the creation of information extraction systems. Dissertation for Ph.D. Degree. Durham: Duke University, 1998. Google Scholar
[5] Yangarber R. Scenario customization for information extraction. Dissertation for Ph.D. Degree. New York: New York University, 2001. Google Scholar
[6] Chen Y B, Liu S L, Zhang X, et al. Automatically labeled data generation for large scale event extraction. In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, 2017. 409--419. Google Scholar
[7] Turchi M, Zavarella V, Tanev H. Pattern learning for event extraction using monolingual statistical machine translation. In: Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, 2011. 371--377. Google Scholar
[8] Li Q, Ji H, Huang L. Joint event extraction via structured prediction with global features. In: Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sofia, 2013. 73--82. Google Scholar
[9] Chieu H L, Ng H T. A maximum entropy approach to information extraction from semi-structured and free text. In: Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Edmonton, 2002. 786--791. Google Scholar
[10] Alan R, Etzioni O, Clark S. Open domain event extraction from Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Beijing, 2012. 1104--1112. Google Scholar
[11] Ahn D. The stages of event extraction. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Annotations and Reasoning about Time and Events, Sydney, 2006. Google Scholar
[12] Ji H, Grishman R. Refining event extraction through unsupervised cross-document inference. In: Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Columbus, 2008. 254--262. Google Scholar
[13] Ji H. Cross-lingual predicate cluster acquisition to improve bilingual event extraction by inductive learning. In: Proceedings of NAACL HLT Workshop on Unsupervised and Minimally Supervised Learning of Lexical Semantics, Boulder, 2009. 27--35. Google Scholar
[14] Liao S S, Grishman R. Using document level cross-event inference to improve event extraction. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, 2010. 789--797. Google Scholar
[15] Hong Y, Zhang J F, Ma B, et al. Using cross-entity inference to improve event extraction. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, 2011. 1127--1136. Google Scholar
[16] Liu S L, Liu K, He S Z, et al. A probabilistic soft logic based approach to exploiting latent and global information in event classification. In: Proceedings of the 13th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Snowbird, 2016. 2993--2999. Google Scholar
[17] Chen Y B, Xu L H, Liu K, et al. Event extraction via dynamic multi-pooling convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Beijing, 2015. 167--176. Google Scholar
[18] Nguyen T H, Grishman R . Event detection and domain adaptation with convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Beijing, 2015. 365--371. Google Scholar
[19] Nguyen T H, Grishman R. Modeling skip-grams for event detection with convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Austin, Texas, 2016. 886--891. Google Scholar
[20] Liu J, Chen Y B, Liu K, et al. Event detection via gated multilingual attention mechanism. In: Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, New Orleans, 2018. 4865--4872. Google Scholar
[21] Yang S, Feng D W, Qiao L B, et al. Exploring pre-trained language models for event extraction and generation. In: Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, 2019. 5284--5294. Google Scholar
[22] Liu X, Luo Z C, Huang H Y. Jointly multiple events extraction via attention-based graph information aggregation. In: Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, 2018. 1247--1256. Google Scholar
[23] Peng H R, Song Y Q, Roth D. Event detection and co-reference with minimal supervision. In: Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Austin, 2016. 392--402. Google Scholar
[24] Mihalcea R, Tarau P. TextRank: bringing order into text. In: Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Barcelona, 2004. 404--411. Google Scholar
[25] Lamberti F, Sanna A, Demartini C. A Relation-Based Page Rank Algorithm for Semantic Web Search Engines. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, 2009, 21: 123-136 CrossRef Google Scholar
[26] Avrachenkov K, Litvak N, Nemirovsky D. Monte Carlo Methods in PageRank Computation: When One Iteration is Sufficient. SIAM J Numer Anal, 2007, 45: 890-904 CrossRef Google Scholar
[27] Qiu L K, Zhang Y. ZORE: a syntax-based system for chinese open relation extraction. In: Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Doha, 2014. 1870--1880. Google Scholar
[28] David M W Powers. Evaluation: From Precision, Recall and F-Measure to ROC, Informedness, Markedness & Correlation. Journal of Machine Learning Technologies, 2011, 2(1): 37-63. Google Scholar
[29] Pennington J, Socher R, Manning C. Glove: global vectors for word representation. In: Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Doha, 2014. 1532--1543. Google Scholar
[30] Dongsuk O, Kwon S, Kim K, et al. Word sense disambiguation based on word similarity calculation using word vector representation from a knowledge-based graph. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Santa Fe, 2018. 2704--2714. Google Scholar
[31] Che W X, Li Z H, Liu T. LTP: a chinese language technology platform. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Beijing, 2010. 13--16. Google Scholar
[32] Heafield K, Kayser M, Manning C D. Faster phrase-based decoding by refining feature state. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, 2014. 130--135. Google Scholar
[33] Huang F, Yates A. Open-domain semantic role labeling by modeling word spans. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, 2010. 968--978. Google Scholar
[34] Tan C Q, Wei F R, Wang W H, et al. Multiway attention networks for modeling sentence pair. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, 2018. 4411--4417. Google Scholar
[35] Gong Y C, Lu H, Zhang J. Natural language inference over interaction space. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Learning Representations, Vancouver, 2018. Google Scholar
[36] Kim S, Kang I, Kwak N. Semantic sentence matching with densely-connected recurrent and co-attentive information. In: Proceedings of AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Honolulu, 2019. 6586--6593. Google Scholar
[37] Devlin J, Chang M W, Lee K, et al. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Minneapolis, 2019. 4171--4186. Google Scholar
[38] Cui Y M, Che W X, Liu T, et al. Pre-training with whole word masking for Chinese BERT. 2019,. arXiv Google Scholar
[39] Zhang X X, Lapata M, Wei F R, et al. Neural latent extractive document summarization. In: Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Brussels, 2018. 779--784. Google Scholar
[40] Zhou Q Y, Yang N, Wei F R, et al. Neural document summarization by jointly learning to score and select sentences. In: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Melbourne, 2018. 654--663. Google Scholar
[41] Jadhav A, Rajan V. Extractive summarization with SWAP-NET: sentences and words from alternating pointer networks. In: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Melbourne, 2018. 142--151. Google Scholar
Figure 1
Sentence-level event graph
Figure 2
Sentence-level event polygon
Figure 3
Passage-level event connection graph
Figure 4
(Color online) Matrix of cosine similarity
Figure 5
(Color online) One example of passage-level event connection graph
Figure 6
(Color online) Performance graph on different selecting proportions of sentences
Figure 7
(Color online) Performance graph on different selecting numbers of words
Method | Data set | $P$ (%) | $R$ (%) | $F$1 |
Sogou | 84.67 | 55.43 | 0.67 | |
TF/IDF | ByteDance | 81.66 | 55.91 | 0.65 |
Mannual | 50.79 | 10.66 | 0.17 | |
Sogou | 83.37 | 21.77 | 0.35 | |
TF/IDF+Cosine | ByteDance | 79.44 | 20.59 | 0.32 |
Mannual | 2.66 | 0.05 | ||
Sogou | 84.44 | 64.33 | 0.73 | |
TF+Cosine | ByteDance | 82.17 | 65.12 | 0.73 |
Mannual | 63.43 | 38.01 | 0.42 | |
Sogou | 85.29 | 68.25 | 0.76 | |
MI+Cosine | ByteDance | 83.71 | 66.73 | 0.74 |
Mannual | 69.36 | 35.18 | 0.46 | |
Sogou | 86.45 | 66.29 | 0.75 | |
WS+Cosine | ByteDance | 65.11 | 0.74 | |
Mannual | 70.41 | 33.97 | 0.45 | |
Sogou | 63.33 | 0.73 | ||
FE+Cosine | ByteDance | 86.31 | 59.28 | 0.70 |
Mannual | 74.67 | 17.26 | 0.28 | |
Sogou | 84.67 | 78.52 | 0.81 | |
TR+Cosine | ByteDance | 82.79 | 0.80 | |
Mannual | 67.13 | 0.54 | ||
Sogou | 81.22 | 72.19 | 0.76 | |
EN+Graph | ByteDance | 77.65 | 73.15 | 0.75 |
Mannual | 33.15 | 42.67 | 0.37 | |
Sogou | 86.54 | |||
Ours | ByteDance | 85.77 | 76.26 | |
Mannual | 75.89 | 43.97 |
a) The value of black bold indicates the maximum value per column.
Method | Data set | $P$ (%) | $R$ (%) | $F$1 |
Sogou | 84.24 | 78.15 | 0.81 | |
MwAN | ByteDance | 84.56 | 75.93 | 0.80 |
Mannual | 73.25 | 30.34 | 0.43 | |
Sogou | 76.83 | 0.82 | ||
DIIN | ByteDance | 85.36 | ||
Mannual | 33.57 | 0.47 | ||
Sogou | 87.82 | 78.44 | ||
DRCN | ByteDance | 84.51 | 76.78 | 0.81 |
Mannual | 71.44 | 38.67 | 0.50 | |
Sogou | 86.54 | 0.83 | ||
Ours | ByteDance | 76.26 | 0.81 | |
Mannual | 75.89 |
a) The value of black bold indicates the maximum value per column.
Method | Data set | $P$ (%) | $R$ (%) | $F$1 |
Sogou | 86.79 | 0.85 | ||
BERT | ByteDance | 86.33 | 76.29 | 0.81 |
Mannual | 74.29 | 37.68 | 0.50 | |
Sogou | 82.88 | |||
BERT-wwm | ByteDance | |||
Mannual | 39.17 | 0.52 | ||
Sogou | 86.54 | 79.29 | 0.83 | |
Ours | ByteDance | 85.77 | 76.26 | 0.81 |
Mannual | 75.89 |
a) The value of black bold indicates the maximum value per column.
Method | Data set | $P$ (%) | $R$ (%) | $F$1 |
Sogou | 85.13 | 78.46 | 0.82 | |
Extract | ByteDance | 83.81 | 0.81 | |
Mannual | 74.31 | 33.26 | 0.46 | |
Sogou | 83.15 | 76.11 | 0.79 | |
NEUSUM | ByteDance | 82.55 | 75.31 | 0.79 |
Mannual | 75.44 | 36.48 | 0.49 | |
Sogou | ||||
SWAP-NET | ByteDance | 85.67 | 75.93 | 0.81 |
Mannual | 74.64 | 39.50 | 0.52 | |
Sogou | 86.54 | 79.19 | 0.83 | |
Ours | ByteDance | 76.16 | ||
Mannual |
a) The value of black bold indicates the maximum value per column.