The Impact of Selectional Preference Agreement on Semantic Relational Similarity

Relational similarity is essential to analogical reasoning. Automatically determining the degree to which a pair of words belongs to a semantic relation (relational similarity) is greatly improved by considering the selectional preferences of the relation. To determine selectional preferences, we induced semantic classes through a Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) method that operates on dependency parse contexts of single words. When assigning relational similarities to pairs of words, if the agreement of selectional preferences is considered alone, a correlation of 0.334 is obtained against the manual ranking outperforming the previously best reported score of 0.229.

[1]  P. Resnik.  Selectional constraints: an information-theoretic model and its computational realization , 1996, Cognition.

[2]  Ari Rappoport,et al.  Efficient Unsupervised Discovery of Word Categories Using Symmetric Patterns and High Frequency Words , 2006, ACL.

[3]  Peter D. Turney.  Measuring Semantic Similarity by Latent Relational Analysis , 2005, IJCAI.

[4]  Brian Roark,et al.  Noun-Phrase Co-Occurence Statistics for Semi-Automatic Semantic Lexicon Construction , 1998, COLING-ACL.

[5]  Vincent Ng,et al.  Inducing Fine-Grained Semantic Classes via Hierarchical and Collective Classification , 2010, COLING.

[6]  Michal Měchura,et al.  Selectional Preferences, Corpora and Ontologies , 2008 .

[7]  Dominic Widdows,et al.  A Graph Model for Unsupervised Lexical Acquisition , 2002, COLING.

[8]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Similarity Involving Attributes and Relations: Judgments of Similarity and Difference Are Not Inverses , 1990 .

[9]  Oren Etzioni,et al.  A Latent Dirichlet Allocation Method for Selectional Preferences , 2010, ACL.

[10]  Treebank Penn,et al.  Linguistic Data Consortium , 1999 .

[11]  Saif Mohammad,et al.  SemEval-2012 Task 2: Measuring Degrees of Relational Similarity , 2012, *SEMEVAL.

[12]  Zhiyuan Liu,et al.  PLDA+: Parallel latent dirichlet allocation with data placement and pipeline processing , 2011, TIST.

[13]  Diarmuid Ó Séaghdha.  Latent Variable Models of Selectional Preference , 2010, ACL.

[14]  R. Chaffin,et al.  Cognitive and Psychometric Analysis of Analogical Problem Solving , 1990 .

[15]  Patrick Pantel,et al.  ISP: Learning Inferential Selectional Preferences , 2007, NAACL.

[16]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought , 1994 .

[17]  Alessandro Lenci,et al.  Distributional Memory: A General Framework for Corpus-Based Semantics , 2010, CL.

[18]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  The Stanford Typed Dependencies Representation , 2008, CF+CDPE@COLING.

[19]  Patrick Pantel,et al.  Induction of semantic classes from natural language text , 2001, KDD '01.

[20]  Sanda M. Harabagiu,et al.  UTD: Determining Relational Similarity Using Lexical Patterns , 2012, *SEMEVAL.

[21]  Patrick Pantel,et al.  Clustering by committee , 2003 .

[22]  Hiram Calvo,et al.  ABSTRACT OF PhD THESIS Automatic Semantic Role Labeling using Selectional Preferences with Very Large Corpora Determinación Automática de Roles Semánticos usando Preferencias de Selección sobre Corpus muy Grandes , 2009 .

[23]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  Peter D. Turney.  A Uniform Approach to Analogies, Synonyms, Antonyms, and Associations , 2008, COLING.

[25]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Latent Dirichlet Allocation , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[26]  Peter D. Turney.  Similarity of Semantic Relations , 2006, CL.

[27]  Brian Roark,et al.  Noun-phrase co-occurrence statistics for semi-automatic semantic lexicon construction , 2000, COLING.