Encyclopedia of Big Data Technologies

2019 Edition
| Editors: Sherif Sakr, Albert Y. Zomaya

Distant Supervision from Knowledge Graphs

  • Alisa Smirnova
  • Julien Audiffren
  • Philippe Cudré-MaurouxEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77525-8_285

Synonyms

Overview

In this chapter, we discuss approaches leveraging distant supervision for relation extraction. We start by introducing the key ideas behind distant supervision as well as their main shortcomings. We then discuss approaches that improve over the basic method, including approaches based on the at-least-one-principle along with their extensions for handling false negative labels, and approaches leveraging topic models. We also describe embeddings-based methods including methods leveraging convolutional neural networks. Finally, we discuss how to take advantage of auxiliary information to improve relation extraction.

Definitions

Definition 1

A knowledge graph, or knowledge base, is a semantic network defined as a set of triples (s, p, o) specifying that a node s (subject) is connected to another node o (object) by the property p. Sets of such triples form a directed graph, where nodes in the graph represent the subject and object in...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alfonseca E, Filippova K, Delort JY, Garrido G (2012) Pattern learning for relation extraction with a hierarchical topic model. In: Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: short papers-volume 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 54–59Google Scholar
  2. Angeli G, Tibshirani J, Wu J, Manning CD (2014) Combining distant and partial supervision for relation extraction. In: EMNLP, pp 1556–1567Google Scholar
  3. Augenstein I, Maynard D, Ciravegna F (2016) Distantly supervised web relation extraction for knowledge base population. Semantic Web 7(4):335–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang KW, Yih SWt, Yang B, Meek C (2014) Typed tensor decomposition of knowledge bases for relation extraction. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp 1568–1579Google Scholar
  5. Fan M, Zhao D, Zhou Q, Liu Z, Zheng TF, Chang EY (2014) Distant supervision for relation extraction with matrix completion. In: ACL (1), Citeseer, pp 839–849Google Scholar
  6. Han X, Sun L (2016) Global distant supervision for relation extraction. In: Thirtieth AAAI conference on artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoffmann R, Zhang C, Ling X, Zettlemoyer L, Weld DS (2011) Knowledge-based weak supervision for information extraction of overlapping relations. In: Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies-volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 541–550Google Scholar
  8. Koch M, Gilmer J, Soderland S, Weld DS (2014) Type-aware distantly supervised relation extraction with linked arguments. In: Proceedings of EMNLP, CiteseerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lin Y, Shen S, Liu Z, Luan H, Sun M (2016) Neural relation extraction with selective attention over instances. In: ACL (1)Google Scholar
  10. Min B, Grishman R, Wan L, Wang C, Gondek D (2013) Distant supervision for relation extraction with an incomplete knowledge base. In: HLT-NAACL, pp 777–782Google Scholar
  11. Mintz M, Bills S, Snow R, Jurafsky D (2009) Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In: Proceedings of the joint conference of the 47th annual meeting of the ACL and the 4th international joint conference on natural language processing of the AFNLP: volume 2-volume 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1003–1011Google Scholar
  12. Pershina M, Min B, Xu W, Grishman R (2014) Infusion of labeled data into distant supervision for relation extraction. In: ACL (2), pp 732–738Google Scholar
  13. Riedel S, Yao L, McCallum A (2010) Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. Mach Learn Knowl Discovery Databases. Springer, pp 148–163Google Scholar
  14. Riedel S, Yao L, McCallum A, Marlin BM (2013a) Relation extraction with matrix factorization and universal schemas. Human language technologies: conference of the north american chapter of the association of computational linguistics, pp 74–84Google Scholar
  15. Ritter A, Zettlemoyer L, Etzioni O et al (2013b) Modeling missing data in distant supervision for information extraction. Trans Assoc Comput Linguist 1: 367–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rocktäschel T, Singh S, Riedel S (2015) Injecting logical background knowledge into embeddings for relation extraction. In: HLT-NAACL, pp 1119–1129Google Scholar
  17. Surdeanu M, Tibshirani J, Nallapati R, Manning CD (2012) Multi-instance multi-label learning for relation extraction. In: Proceedings of the 2012 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 455–465Google Scholar
  18. Xu W, Hoffmann R, Zhao L, Grishman R (2013) Filling knowledge base gaps for distant supervision of relation extraction. In: ACL (2), pp 665–670Google Scholar
  19. Yao L, Haghighi A, Riedel S, McCallum A (2011) Structured relation discovery using generative models. In: Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1456–1466Google Scholar
  20. Zeng D, Liu K, Lai S, Zhou G, Zhao J et al (2014) Relation classification via convolutional deep neural network. In: COLING, pp 2335–2344Google Scholar
  21. Zeng D, Liu K, Chen Y, Zhao J (2015) Distant supervision for relation extraction via piecewise convolutional neural networks. In: EMNLP, pp 1753–1762Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alisa Smirnova
    • 1
  • Julien Audiffren
    • 1
  • Philippe Cudré-Mauroux
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Exascale InfolabUniversity of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland