4.6 Article

Graph-based reasoning model for multiple relation extraction

期刊

NEUROCOMPUTING
卷 420, 期 -, 页码 162-170

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2020.09.025

关键词

Relation extraction; Information extraction; Neural networks; Natural language processing

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016QY03D0602]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61751201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes using corpus subgraphs and sentence subgraphs to obtain linguistic knowledge and classification knowledge, building a relation knowledge graph to extract relations from sentences, and treating multiple relation extraction as a reasoning process for knowledge completion.
Linguistic knowledge is useful for various NLP tasks, but the difficulty lies in the representation and application. We consider that linguistic knowledge is implied in a large-scale corpus, while classification knowledge, the knowledge related to the definitions of entity and relation types, is implied in the labeled training data. Therefore, a corpus subgraph is proposed to mine more linguistic knowledge from the easily accessible unlabeled data, and sentence subgraphs are used to acquire classification knowledge. They jointly constitute a relation knowledge graph (RKG) to extract relations from sentences in this paper. On RKG, entity recognition can be regarded as a property value filling problem and relation classification can be regarded as a link prediction problem. Thus, the multiple relation extraction can be treated as a reasoning process for knowledge completion. We combine statistical reasoning and neural network reasoning to segment sentences into entity chunks and non-entity chunks, then propose a novel Chunk Graph LSTM network to learn the representations of entity chunks and infer the relations among them. The experiments on two standard datasets demonstrate our model outperforms the previous models for multiple relation extraction. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据