Text Relation Extraction Using Sentence-Relation Semantic Similarity

  • Mohamed LubaniEmail author
  • Shahrul Azman Mohd Noah
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11909)


There is a huge amount of available information stored in unstructured plain text. Relation Extraction (RE) is an important task in the process of converting unstructured resources into machine-readable format. RE is usually considered as a classification problem where a set of features are extracted from the training sentences and thereafter passed to a classifier to predict the relation labels. Existing methods either manually design these features or automatically build them by means of deep neural networks. However, in many cases these features are general and do not accurately reflect the properties of the input sentences. In addition, these features are only built for the input sentences with no regard to the features of the target relations. In this paper, we follow a different approach to perform the RE task. We propose an extended autoencoder model to automatically build vector representations for sentences and relations from their distinctive features. The built vectors are high abstract continuous vector representations (embeddings) where task related features are preserved and noisy irrelevant features are eliminated. Similarity measures are then used to find the sentence-relation semantic similarities using their representations in order to label sentences with the most similar relations. The conducted experiments show that the proposed model is effective in labeling new sentences with their correct semantic relations.


Embeddings Natural language processing Neural networks Relation extraction 


  1. 1.
    Lubani, M., Noah, S.A.M., Mahmud, R.: Ontology population: approaches and design aspects. J. Inf. Sci. 45(4), 502–515 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hazrina, S., Sharef, N.M., Ibrahim, H., Murad, M.A.A., Noah, S.A.M.: Review on the advancements of disambiguation in semantic question answering system. Inf. Process. Manage. 53(1), 52–69 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nasution, M.K., Noah, S.A.: Information retrieval model: a social network extraction perspective. In International Conference on Information Retrieval & Knowledge Management, pp. 322–326, IEEE, Kuala Lumpur (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brin, S.: Extracting patterns and relations from the world wide web. In: The World Wide Web and Databases, pp. 172–183 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Agichtein, E., Gravano, L.: Snowball: extracting relations from large plain-text collections. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 85–94. ACM (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ravichandran, D., Hovy, E.: Learning surface text patterns for a question answering system. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Philadelphia, pp. 41–47 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alfonseca, E., Ruiz-Casado, M., Okumura, M., Castells, P.: Towards large-scale non-taxonomic relation extraction: estimating the precision of rote extractors. In: The 2nd Workshop on Ontology Learning and Population, Sydney, Australia, pp. 49–56 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alfonseca, E., Castells, P., Okumura, M., Ruiz-Casado, M.: A rote extractor with edit distance-based generalisation and multi-corpora precision calculation. In: Proceedings of the COLING/ACL on Main Conference Poster Sessions, pp. 9–16. Association for Computational Linguistics (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Etzioni, O., et al.: Unsupervised named-entity extraction from the web: an experimental study. Artif. Intell. 165, 91–134 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    GuoDong, Z., Jian, S., Jie, Z., Min, Z.: Exploring various knowledge in relation extraction. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 427–434. Association for Computational Linguistics, Ann Arbor (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, Y., Li, W., Liu, Y., Zheng, D., Zhao, T.: Exploring deep belief network for Chinese relation extraction. In: Proceedings of the CIPS-SIGHAN Joint Conference on Chinese Language Processing (CLP 2010), Beijing, China (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu, C., Sun, W., Chao, W., Che, W.: Convolution neural network for relation extraction. In: Motoda, H., Wu, Z., Cao, L., Zaiane, O., Yao, M., Wang, W. (eds.) ADMA 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8347, pp. 231–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zeng, D., Liu, K., Lai, S., Zhou, G., Zhao, J.: Relation classification via convolutional deep neural network. In: International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 2335–2344 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suchanek, F.M., Ifrim, G., Weikum, G.: LEILA: learning to extract information by linguistic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Ontology Learning and Population: Bridging the Gap between Text and Knowledge, Sydney, Australia, pp. 18–25 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zelenko, D., Aone, C., Richardella, A.: Kernel methods for relation extraction. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 1083–1106 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Culotta, A., Sorensen, J.: Dependency tree kernels for relation extraction. In: ACL 2004 Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, p. 423. Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bunescu, R., Mooney, R.: A shortest path dependency kernel for relation extraction. In: Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 724–731. Association for Computational Linguistic, Vancouver (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhou, G., Zhang, M., Ji, D.H., Zhu, Q.: Tree kernel-based relation extraction with context-sensitive structured parse tree information. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), pp. 728–736. Association for Computational Linguistics, Prague (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang, M., Zhang, J., Su, J., Zhou, G.: A composite kernel to extract relations between entities with both flat and structured features. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 825–832. Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney, Australia (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bunescu, R.C., Mooney, R.J.: Subsequence kernels for relation extraction. In: NIPS 2005 Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 171–178. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mintz, M., Bills, S., Snow, R., Jurafsky, D.: Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In: Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th IJCNLP of the AFNLP, Suntec, Singapore, pp. 1003–1011 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Su, Y., Liu, H., Yavuz, S., Gür, I., Sun, H., Yan, X.: Global relation embedding for relation extraction. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pp. 820–830. Association for Computational Linguistics, New Orleans (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zeng, D., Liu, K., Chen, Y., Zhao, J.: Distant supervision for relation extraction via piecewise convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1753–1762. Association for Computational Linguistics, Lisbon (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu, Y., Li, S., Wei, F., Ji, H.: Relation classification via modeling augmented dependency paths. IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process. 24(9), 1589–1598 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bordes, A., Usunier, N., Garcia-Durán, A., Weston, J., Yakhnenko, O.: Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. In: NIPS 2013 Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 2, pp. 2787–2795. Curran Associates Inc., Lake Tahoe (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang, G., et al.: Label-free distant supervision for relation extraction via knowledge graph embedding. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 2246–2255. Association for Computational Linguistics, Brussels (2018)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rumelhart, D.E., McClelland, J.L., Asanuma, C.: Learning internal representations by error propagation. In: Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, pp. 318–362. MIT Press Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., Dean, J.: Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 3111–3119. Curran Associates Inc., USA (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pennington, J., Socher, R., Manning, C.: GloVe: global vectors for word representation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 1532–1543. Association for Computational Linguistics, Doha (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abadi, M., et al.: Tensorflow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous distributed systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.04467 (2016)
  31. 31.
    Goldberg, Y., Nivre, J.: A dynamic Oracle for arc-eager dependency parsing. In: Proceedings of COLING 2012, pp. 959–976. The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee, Mumbai, India (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Girju, R., Nakov, P., Nastase, V., Szpakowicz, S., Turney, P., Yuret, D.: SemEval-2007 task 04: classification of semantic relations between nominals. In: SemEval 2007 Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations, pp. 13–18. Association for Computational Linguistics, Prague (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Noah, S.A., Omar, N., Amruddin, A.Y.: Evaluation of lexical-based approaches to the semantic similarity of Malay sentences. J. Quantit. Ling. 22(2), 135–156 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Noah, S.A., Amruddin, A.Y., Omar, N.: Semantic Similarity Measures for Malay Sentences. In: Goh, D.H.-L., Cao, T.H., Sølvberg, I.T., Rasmussen, E. (eds.) ICADL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4822, pp. 117–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Artificial Intelligence Technology, Faculty of Information Science and TechnologyUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaBangiMalaysia

Personalised recommendations