The source code of this chapter is live on[book/label_semantic_roles](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/tree/develop/07.label_semantic_roles).
The source code of this chapter locates at[book/label_semantic_roles](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/tree/develop/07.label_semantic_roles).
For instructions on getting started with PaddlePaddle, see [PaddlePaddle installation guide](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/blob/develop/README.md#running-the-book).
...
...
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ In the following example of a Chinese sentence, "to encounter" is the predicate
$$\mbox{[小明 Ming]}_{\mbox{Agent}}\mbox{[昨天 yesterday]}_{\mbox{Time}}\mbox{[晚上 evening]}_\mbox{Time}\mbox{在[公园 a park]}_{\mbox{Location}}\mbox{[遇到 to encounter]}_{\mbox{Predicate}}\mbox{了[小红 Hong]}_{\mbox{Patient}}\mbox{。}$$
Instead of analyzing the semantic information, **Semantic Role Labeling** (**SRL**) identifies the relation between the predicate and the other constituents surrounding it. The predicate-argument structures are labeled as specific semantic roles. A wide range of natural language understanding tasks, including *information extraction*, *discourse analysis*, and *deepQA*. Research usually assumes a predicate of a sentence to be specified; the only task is to identify its arguments and their semantic roles.
Instead of analyzing the semantic information, **Semantic Role Labeling** (**SRL**) identifies the relationship between the predicate and the other constituents surrounding it. The predicate-argument structures are labeled as specific semantic roles. A wide range of natural language understanding tasks, including *information extraction*, *discourse analysis*, and *deepQA*. Research usually assumes a predicate of a sentence to be specified; the only task is to identify its arguments and their semantic roles.
Conventional SRL systems mostly build on top of syntactic analysis, usually consisting of five steps:
...
...
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ Fig 1. Syntax tree
</div>
However, a complete syntactic analysis requires identifying the relation among all constituents. Thus, the accuracy of SRL is sensitive to the preciseness of the syntactic analysis, making SRL challenging. To reduce its complexity and obtain some information on the syntactic structures, we often use *shallow syntactic analysis* a.k.a. partial parsing or chunking. Unlike complete syntactic analysis, which requires the construction of the complete parsing tree, *Shallow Syntactic Analysis* only requires identifying some independent constituents with relatively simple structures, such as verb phrases (chunk). To avoid difficulties in constructing a syntax tree with high accuracy, some work\[[1](#Reference)\] proposed semantic chunking-based SRL methods, which reduces SRL into a sequence tagging problem. Sequence tagging tasks classify syntactic chunks using **BIO representation**. For syntactic chunks forming role A, its first chunk receives the B-A tag (Begin) and the remaining ones receive the tag I-A (Inside); in the end, the chunks left out receive the tag O.
However, a complete syntactic analysis requires identifying the relationship among all constituents. Thus, the accuracy of SRL is sensitive to the preciseness of the syntactic analysis, making SRL challenging. To reduce its complexity and obtain some information on the syntactic structures, we often use *shallow syntactic analysis* a.k.a. partial parsing or chunking. Unlike complete syntactic analysis, which requires the construction of the complete parsing tree, *Shallow Syntactic Analysis* only requires identifying some independent constituents with relatively simple structures, such as verb phrases (chunk). To avoid difficulties in constructing a syntax tree with high accuracy, some work\[[1](#Reference)\] proposed semantic chunking-based SRL methods, which reduces SRL into a sequence tagging problem. Sequence tagging tasks classify syntactic chunks using **BIO representation**. For syntactic chunks forming role A, its first chunk receives the B-A tag (Begin) and the remaining ones receive the tag I-A (Inside); in the end, the chunks left out will receive the tag O.
The BIO representation of above example is shown in Fig.1.
...
...
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ In this tutorial, our SRL system is built as an end-to-end system via a neural n
## Model
**Recurrent Neural Networks** (*RNN*) are important tools for sequence modeling and have been successfully used in some natural language processing tasks. Unlike feed-forward neural networks, RNNs can model the dependencies between elements of sequences. As a variant of RNNs', LSTMs aim model long-term dependency in long sequences. We have introduced this in [understand_sentiment](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/tree/develop/05.understand_sentiment). In this chapter, we continue to use LSTMs to solve SRL problems.
**Recurrent Neural Networks** (*RNN*) are important tools for sequence modeling and have been successfully used in some natural language processing tasks. Unlike feed-forward neural networks, RNNs can model the dependencies between elements of sequences. As a variant of RNNs', LSTMs aim modeling long-term dependency in long sequences. We have introduced this in [understand_sentiment](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/tree/develop/05.understand_sentiment). In this chapter, we continue to use LSTMs to solve SRL problems.
While LSTMs can summarize the history -- all the previous input seen up until now -- they can not see the future. Because most NLP (natural language processing) tasks provide the entirety of sentences, sequential learning can benefit from having the future encoded as well as the history.
While LSTMs can summarize the history, they can not see the future. Because most NLP (natural language processing) tasks provide the entirety of sentences, sequential learning can benefit from having the future encoded as well as the history.
To address, we can design a bidirectional recurrent neural network by making a minor modification. A higher LSTM layer can process the sequence in reversed direction with regards to its immediate lower LSTM layer, i.e., deep LSTM layers take turns to train on input sequences from left-to-right and right-to-left. Therefore, LSTM layers at time-step $t$ can see both histories and the future, starting from the second layer. Fig. 4 illustrates the bidirectional recurrent neural networks.
To address this, we can design a bidirectional recurrent neural network by making a minor modification. A higher LSTM layer can process the sequence in reversed direction with regards to its immediate lower LSTM layer, i.e., deep LSTM layers take turns to train on input sequences from left-to-right and right-to-left. Therefore, LSTM layers at time-step $t$ can see both histories and the future, starting from the second layer. Fig. 4 illustrates the bidirectional recurrent neural networks.
<palign="center">
...
...
@@ -87,16 +87,16 @@ To address, we can design a bidirectional recurrent neural network by making a m
Fig 4. Bidirectional LSTMs
</p>
Note that, this bidirectional RNNs is different with the one proposed by Bengio et al. in machine translation tasks \[[3](#Reference), [4](#Reference)\]. We will introduce another bidirectional RNNs in the following tasks[machine translation](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/blob/develop/08.machine_translation/README.md)
Note that, this bidirectional RNNs is different from the one proposed by Bengio et al. in machine translation tasks \[[3](#Reference), [4](#Reference)\]. We will introduce another bidirectional RNNs in the following chapter[machine translation](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/blob/develop/08.machine_translation/README.md)
### Conditional Random Field (CRF)
Typically, a neural network's lower layers learn representations while its very top layer learns the final task. These principles can guide our problem-solving approaches. In SRL tasks, a **Conditional Random Field** (*CRF*) is built on top of the network in order to perform the final prediction to tag sequences. It takes as input the representations provided by the last LSTM layer.
Typically, a neural network's lower layers learn representations while its very top layer accomplishs the final task. These principles can guide our problem-solving approaches. In SRL tasks, a **Conditional Random Field** (*CRF*) is built on top of the network in order to perform the final prediction to tag sequences. It takes representations provided by the last LSTM layer as input.
The CRF is an undirected probabilistic graph with nodes denoting random variables and edges denoting dependencies between these variables. In essence, CRFs learn the conditional probability $P(Y|X)$, where $X = (x_1, x_2, ... , x_n)$ are sequences of input and $Y = (y_1, y_2, ... , y_n)$ are label sequences; to decode, simply search through $Y$ for a sequence that maximizes the conditional probability $P(Y|X)$, i.e., $Y^* = \mbox{arg max}_{Y} P(Y | X)$。
Sequence tagging tasks do not assume a lot of conditional independence, because they are only concerned with the input and the output being linear sequences. Thus, the graph model of sequence tagging tasks is usually a simple chain or line, which results in a **Linear-Chain Conditional Random Field**, shown in Fig.5.
Sequence tagging tasks do not assume a lot of conditional independence, because they only concern about the input and the output being linear sequences. Thus, the graph model of sequence tagging tasks is usually a simple chain or line, which results in a **Linear-Chain Conditional Random Field**, shown in Fig.5.
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ Given predicates and a sentence, SRL tasks aim to identify arguments of the give
- expand input 1 into a sequence of the same length with input 2's sentence, using one-hot representation;
2. Convert the one-hot sequences from step 1 to vector sequences via a word embedding's lookup table;
3. Learn the representation of input sequences by taking vector sequences from step 2 as inputs;
4. Take the representation from step 3 as input, label sequence as supervisory signal, and realize sequence tagging tasks.
4. Take the representation from step 3 as input, label sequence as a supervisory signal, and realize sequence tagging tasks.
Here, we propose some improvements by introducing two simple but effective features:
...
...
@@ -140,11 +140,11 @@ Here, we propose some improvements by introducing two simple but effective featu
After these modifications, the model is as follows, as illustrated in Figure 6:
1. Construct inputs
- Input 1: word sequence. Input 2: predicate. Input 3: predicate context, extract $n$ words before and after predicate. Input 4: region mark sequence, where an entry is 1 if word is located in the predicate context region, 0 otherwise.
- Input 1: word sequence. Input 2: predicate. Input 3: predicate context, extract $n$ words before and after predicate. Input 4: region mark sequence, where an entry is 1 if the word is located in the predicate context region, 0 otherwise.
- expand input 2~3 into sequences with the same length with input 1
2. Convert input 1~4 to vector sequences via word embedding lookup tables; While input 1 and 3 shares the same lookup table, input 2 and 4 have separate lookup tables.
3. Take the four vector sequences from step 2 as inputs to bidirectional LSTMs; Train the LSTMs to update representations.
4. Take the representation from step 3 as input to CRF, label sequence as supervisory signal, and complete sequence tagging tasks.
4. Take the representation from step 3 as input to CRF, label sequence as a supervisory signal, and complete sequence tagging tasks.
<divalign="center">
...
...
@@ -161,8 +161,8 @@ The original data includes a variety of information such as POS tagging, naming
```text
conll05st-release/
└── test.wsj
├── props # 标注结果
└── words # 输入文本序列
├── props # label results
└── words # text sequence
```
The annotation information is derived from the results of Penn TreeBank\[[7](#references)\] and PropBank \[[8](# references)\]. The labeling of the PropBank is different from the labeling methods mentioned before, but shares with it the same underlying principle. For descriptions of the labeling, please refer to the paper \[[9](#references)\].
...
...
@@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ In addition to the data, we provide following resources:
| word_dict | dictionary of input sentences, total 44068 words |
| label_dict | dictionary of labels, total 106 labels |
| predicate_dict | predicate dictionary, total 3162 predicates |
| emb | a pre-trained word vector lookup table, 32-dimentional |
| emb | a pre-trained word vector lookup table, 32-dimensional |
We trained a language model on the English Wikipedia to get a word vector lookup table used to initialize the SRL model. While training the SRL model, the word vector lookup table is no longer updated. To learn more about the language model and the word vector lookup table, please refer to the tutorial [word vector](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/blob/develop/04.word2vec/README.md). There are 995,000,000 tokens in the training corpus, and the dictionary size is 4900,000 words. In the CoNLL 2005 training corpus, 5% of the words are not in the 4900,000 words, and we see them all as unknown words, represented by `<unk>`.
...
...
@@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ trainer.train(
### Application
Aftern training is done, we need to select an optimal model based one performance index to do inference. In this task, one can simply select the model with the least number of marks on the test set. The `paddle.layer.crf_decoding` layer is used in the inference, but its inputs does not include the ground truth label.
When training is completed, we need to select an optimal model based one performance index to do inference. In this task, one can simply select the model with the least number of marks on the test set. The `paddle.layer.crf_decoding` layer is used in the inference, but its inputs do not include the ground truth label.
The source code of this chapter is live on [book/label_semantic_roles](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/tree/develop/07.label_semantic_roles).
The source code of this chapter locates at [book/label_semantic_roles](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/tree/develop/07.label_semantic_roles).
For instructions on getting started with PaddlePaddle, see [PaddlePaddle installation guide](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/blob/develop/README.md#running-the-book).
...
...
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ In the following example of a Chinese sentence, "to encounter" is the predicate
$$\mbox{[小明 Ming]}_{\mbox{Agent}}\mbox{[昨天 yesterday]}_{\mbox{Time}}\mbox{[晚上 evening]}_\mbox{Time}\mbox{在[公园 a park]}_{\mbox{Location}}\mbox{[遇到 to encounter]}_{\mbox{Predicate}}\mbox{了[小红 Hong]}_{\mbox{Patient}}\mbox{。}$$
Instead of analyzing the semantic information, **Semantic Role Labeling** (**SRL**) identifies the relation between the predicate and the other constituents surrounding it. The predicate-argument structures are labeled as specific semantic roles. A wide range of natural language understanding tasks, including *information extraction*, *discourse analysis*, and *deepQA*. Research usually assumes a predicate of a sentence to be specified; the only task is to identify its arguments and their semantic roles.
Instead of analyzing the semantic information, **Semantic Role Labeling** (**SRL**) identifies the relationship between the predicate and the other constituents surrounding it. The predicate-argument structures are labeled as specific semantic roles. A wide range of natural language understanding tasks, including *information extraction*, *discourse analysis*, and *deepQA*. Research usually assumes a predicate of a sentence to be specified; the only task is to identify its arguments and their semantic roles.
Conventional SRL systems mostly build on top of syntactic analysis, usually consisting of five steps:
...
...
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ Fig 1. Syntax tree
</div>
However, a complete syntactic analysis requires identifying the relation among all constituents. Thus, the accuracy of SRL is sensitive to the preciseness of the syntactic analysis, making SRL challenging. To reduce its complexity and obtain some information on the syntactic structures, we often use *shallow syntactic analysis* a.k.a. partial parsing or chunking. Unlike complete syntactic analysis, which requires the construction of the complete parsing tree, *Shallow Syntactic Analysis* only requires identifying some independent constituents with relatively simple structures, such as verb phrases (chunk). To avoid difficulties in constructing a syntax tree with high accuracy, some work\[[1](#Reference)\] proposed semantic chunking-based SRL methods, which reduces SRL into a sequence tagging problem. Sequence tagging tasks classify syntactic chunks using **BIO representation**. For syntactic chunks forming role A, its first chunk receives the B-A tag (Begin) and the remaining ones receive the tag I-A (Inside); in the end, the chunks left out receive the tag O.
However, a complete syntactic analysis requires identifying the relationship among all constituents. Thus, the accuracy of SRL is sensitive to the preciseness of the syntactic analysis, making SRL challenging. To reduce its complexity and obtain some information on the syntactic structures, we often use *shallow syntactic analysis* a.k.a. partial parsing or chunking. Unlike complete syntactic analysis, which requires the construction of the complete parsing tree, *Shallow Syntactic Analysis* only requires identifying some independent constituents with relatively simple structures, such as verb phrases (chunk). To avoid difficulties in constructing a syntax tree with high accuracy, some work\[[1](#Reference)\] proposed semantic chunking-based SRL methods, which reduces SRL into a sequence tagging problem. Sequence tagging tasks classify syntactic chunks using **BIO representation**. For syntactic chunks forming role A, its first chunk receives the B-A tag (Begin) and the remaining ones receive the tag I-A (Inside); in the end, the chunks left out will receive the tag O.
The BIO representation of above example is shown in Fig.1.
...
...
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ In this tutorial, our SRL system is built as an end-to-end system via a neural n
## Model
**Recurrent Neural Networks** (*RNN*) are important tools for sequence modeling and have been successfully used in some natural language processing tasks. Unlike feed-forward neural networks, RNNs can model the dependencies between elements of sequences. As a variant of RNNs', LSTMs aim model long-term dependency in long sequences. We have introduced this in [understand_sentiment](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/tree/develop/05.understand_sentiment). In this chapter, we continue to use LSTMs to solve SRL problems.
**Recurrent Neural Networks** (*RNN*) are important tools for sequence modeling and have been successfully used in some natural language processing tasks. Unlike feed-forward neural networks, RNNs can model the dependencies between elements of sequences. As a variant of RNNs', LSTMs aim modeling long-term dependency in long sequences. We have introduced this in [understand_sentiment](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/tree/develop/05.understand_sentiment). In this chapter, we continue to use LSTMs to solve SRL problems.
While LSTMs can summarize the history -- all the previous input seen up until now -- they can not see the future. Because most NLP (natural language processing) tasks provide the entirety of sentences, sequential learning can benefit from having the future encoded as well as the history.
While LSTMs can summarize the history, they can not see the future. Because most NLP (natural language processing) tasks provide the entirety of sentences, sequential learning can benefit from having the future encoded as well as the history.
To address, we can design a bidirectional recurrent neural network by making a minor modification. A higher LSTM layer can process the sequence in reversed direction with regards to its immediate lower LSTM layer, i.e., deep LSTM layers take turns to train on input sequences from left-to-right and right-to-left. Therefore, LSTM layers at time-step $t$ can see both histories and the future, starting from the second layer. Fig. 4 illustrates the bidirectional recurrent neural networks.
To address this, we can design a bidirectional recurrent neural network by making a minor modification. A higher LSTM layer can process the sequence in reversed direction with regards to its immediate lower LSTM layer, i.e., deep LSTM layers take turns to train on input sequences from left-to-right and right-to-left. Therefore, LSTM layers at time-step $t$ can see both histories and the future, starting from the second layer. Fig. 4 illustrates the bidirectional recurrent neural networks.
<palign="center">
...
...
@@ -129,16 +129,16 @@ To address, we can design a bidirectional recurrent neural network by making a m
Fig 4. Bidirectional LSTMs
</p>
Note that, this bidirectional RNNs is different with the one proposed by Bengio et al. in machine translation tasks \[[3](#Reference), [4](#Reference)\]. We will introduce another bidirectional RNNs in the following tasks [machine translation](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/blob/develop/08.machine_translation/README.md)
Note that, this bidirectional RNNs is different from the one proposed by Bengio et al. in machine translation tasks \[[3](#Reference), [4](#Reference)\]. We will introduce another bidirectional RNNs in the following chapter [machine translation](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/blob/develop/08.machine_translation/README.md)
### Conditional Random Field (CRF)
Typically, a neural network's lower layers learn representations while its very top layer learns the final task. These principles can guide our problem-solving approaches. In SRL tasks, a **Conditional Random Field** (*CRF*) is built on top of the network in order to perform the final prediction to tag sequences. It takes as input the representations provided by the last LSTM layer.
Typically, a neural network's lower layers learn representations while its very top layer accomplishs the final task. These principles can guide our problem-solving approaches. In SRL tasks, a **Conditional Random Field** (*CRF*) is built on top of the network in order to perform the final prediction to tag sequences. It takes representations provided by the last LSTM layer as input.
The CRF is an undirected probabilistic graph with nodes denoting random variables and edges denoting dependencies between these variables. In essence, CRFs learn the conditional probability $P(Y|X)$, where $X = (x_1, x_2, ... , x_n)$ are sequences of input and $Y = (y_1, y_2, ... , y_n)$ are label sequences; to decode, simply search through $Y$ for a sequence that maximizes the conditional probability $P(Y|X)$, i.e., $Y^* = \mbox{arg max}_{Y} P(Y | X)$。
Sequence tagging tasks do not assume a lot of conditional independence, because they are only concerned with the input and the output being linear sequences. Thus, the graph model of sequence tagging tasks is usually a simple chain or line, which results in a **Linear-Chain Conditional Random Field**, shown in Fig.5.
Sequence tagging tasks do not assume a lot of conditional independence, because they only concern about the input and the output being linear sequences. Thus, the graph model of sequence tagging tasks is usually a simple chain or line, which results in a **Linear-Chain Conditional Random Field**, shown in Fig.5.
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ Given predicates and a sentence, SRL tasks aim to identify arguments of the give
- expand input 1 into a sequence of the same length with input 2's sentence, using one-hot representation;
2. Convert the one-hot sequences from step 1 to vector sequences via a word embedding's lookup table;
3. Learn the representation of input sequences by taking vector sequences from step 2 as inputs;
4. Take the representation from step 3 as input, label sequence as supervisory signal, and realize sequence tagging tasks.
4. Take the representation from step 3 as input, label sequence as a supervisory signal, and realize sequence tagging tasks.
Here, we propose some improvements by introducing two simple but effective features:
...
...
@@ -182,11 +182,11 @@ Here, we propose some improvements by introducing two simple but effective featu
After these modifications, the model is as follows, as illustrated in Figure 6:
1. Construct inputs
- Input 1: word sequence. Input 2: predicate. Input 3: predicate context, extract $n$ words before and after predicate. Input 4: region mark sequence, where an entry is 1 if word is located in the predicate context region, 0 otherwise.
- Input 1: word sequence. Input 2: predicate. Input 3: predicate context, extract $n$ words before and after predicate. Input 4: region mark sequence, where an entry is 1 if the word is located in the predicate context region, 0 otherwise.
- expand input 2~3 into sequences with the same length with input 1
2. Convert input 1~4 to vector sequences via word embedding lookup tables; While input 1 and 3 shares the same lookup table, input 2 and 4 have separate lookup tables.
3. Take the four vector sequences from step 2 as inputs to bidirectional LSTMs; Train the LSTMs to update representations.
4. Take the representation from step 3 as input to CRF, label sequence as supervisory signal, and complete sequence tagging tasks.
4. Take the representation from step 3 as input to CRF, label sequence as a supervisory signal, and complete sequence tagging tasks.
<divalign="center">
...
...
@@ -203,8 +203,8 @@ The original data includes a variety of information such as POS tagging, naming
```text
conll05st-release/
└── test.wsj
├── props # 标注结果
└── words # 输入文本序列
├── props # label results
└── words # text sequence
```
The annotation information is derived from the results of Penn TreeBank\[[7](#references)\] and PropBank \[[8](# references)\]. The labeling of the PropBank is different from the labeling methods mentioned before, but shares with it the same underlying principle. For descriptions of the labeling, please refer to the paper \[[9](#references)\].
...
...
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ In addition to the data, we provide following resources:
| word_dict | dictionary of input sentences, total 44068 words |
| label_dict | dictionary of labels, total 106 labels |
| predicate_dict | predicate dictionary, total 3162 predicates |
| emb | a pre-trained word vector lookup table, 32-dimentional |
| emb | a pre-trained word vector lookup table, 32-dimensional |
We trained a language model on the English Wikipedia to get a word vector lookup table used to initialize the SRL model. While training the SRL model, the word vector lookup table is no longer updated. To learn more about the language model and the word vector lookup table, please refer to the tutorial [word vector](https://github.com/PaddlePaddle/book/blob/develop/04.word2vec/README.md). There are 995,000,000 tokens in the training corpus, and the dictionary size is 4900,000 words. In the CoNLL 2005 training corpus, 5% of the words are not in the 4900,000 words, and we see them all as unknown words, represented by `<unk>`.
...
...
@@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ trainer.train(
### Application
Aftern training is done, we need to select an optimal model based one performance index to do inference. In this task, one can simply select the model with the least number of marks on the test set. The `paddle.layer.crf_decoding` layer is used in the inference, but its inputs does not include the ground truth label.
When training is completed, we need to select an optimal model based one performance index to do inference. In this task, one can simply select the model with the least number of marks on the test set. The `paddle.layer.crf_decoding` layer is used in the inference, but its inputs do not include the ground truth label.
