Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Engineering Management

ISSN 2095-7513

ISSN 2096-0255(Online)

CN 10-1205/N

Postal Subscription Code 80-905

Front. Eng    2022, Vol. 9 Issue (4) : 610-622    https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-022-0226-0
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Entity and relation extraction with rule-guided dictionary as domain knowledge
Xinzhi WANG1(), Jiahao LI1, Ze ZHENG2, Yudong CHANG1, Min ZHU3
1. School of Computer Engineering and Science, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China
2. Baidu (China) Co., Ltd., Beijing 100085, China
3. The Sixth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100048, China
 Download: PDF(3090 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Entity and relation extraction is an indispensable part of domain knowledge graph construction, which can serve relevant knowledge needs in a specific domain, such as providing support for product research, sales, risk control, and domain hotspot analysis. The existing entity and relation extraction methods that depend on pretrained models have shown promising performance on open datasets. However, the performance of these methods degrades when they face domain-specific datasets. Entity extraction models treat characters as basic semantic units while ignoring known character dependency in specific domains. Relation extraction is based on the hypothesis that the relations hidden in sentences are unified, thereby neglecting that relations may be diverse in different entity tuples. To address the problems above, this paper first introduced prior knowledge composed of domain dictionaries to enhance characters’ dependence. Second, domain rules were built to eliminate noise in entity relations and promote potential entity relation extraction. Finally, experiments were designed to verify the effectiveness of our proposed methods. Experimental results on two domains, including laser industry and unmanned ship, showed the superiority of our methods. The F1 value on laser industry entity, unmanned ship entity, laser industry relation, and unmanned ship relation datasets is improved by +1%, +6%, +2%, and +1%, respectively. In addition, the extraction accuracy of entity relation triplet reaches 83% and 76% on laser industry entity pair and unmanned ship entity pair datasets, respectively.

Keywords entity extraction      relation extraction      prior knowledge      domain rule     
Corresponding Author(s): Xinzhi WANG   
Just Accepted Date: 14 September 2022   Online First Date: 31 October 2022    Issue Date: 08 December 2022
 Cite this article:   
Xinzhi WANG,Jiahao LI,Ze ZHENG, et al. Entity and relation extraction with rule-guided dictionary as domain knowledge[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(4): 610-622.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-022-0226-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2022/V9/I4/610
Fig.1  MRE architecture.
Fig.2  Bi-LSTM model based on attention mechanism.
Fig.3  Domain named entity recognition model incorporating prior knowledge.
  
NumberPattern
0{NP,}*NP{[and|or]NP}?etc.({NP,}*NP{[和|或]NP}?等)
1NP[include|contain|like|for example|such as]{NP,}*NP{(and|or)NP}?etc.(NP[包括|包含|如|例如|像]{NP,}*NP{(和|或)NP}?等)
2{NP,}*NP{(and|or)NP}?({NP,}*NP{(和|或)NP}?)
Tab.1  Patterns of extraction
  
NumberPattern
0{^.*?(with|as well as|and).*?(subscribe|sign|expand|reach).*?$}({^.*?(与|跟|和).*?(签订|签署|展开|达成).*?$})
1{^.*?(for).*?(provide|supply|offer).*?$}({^.*?(为).*?(提供|供应|供货).*?$})
2{^.*?(from).*?(supply|provide|reach|carry out|offer).*?$}({^.*?(由).*?(供应|提供|达成|开展|供货).*?$})
Tab.2  Patterns of extracting cooperative relation
DatasetClassTrainingDevelopmentTest
LIRPositive1000200200
Negative1000200200
USRPositive1329285285
Negative1329285285
Tab.3  Dataset description of relation extraction
Class#M(Training)#M(Development)#M(Test)
LIE dataset
Organization2877617618
Total2877617618
USE dataset
Organization3375710695
Weapon820167156
Ship3197641702
Location3799898855
Function1073201251
Measure3331700735
Port1776378313
Total1737136953707
Tab.4  Dataset statistics of entity extraction
ModelsLIR datasetUSR dataset
PrecisionRecallF1 valuePrecisionRecallF1 value
Bi-LSTM+ATT0.980.960.970.920.920.92
Bi-LSTM0.950.960.950.920.910.91
LR0.950.950.950.910.910.91
Naive Bayes0.940.940.940.860.850.85
Tab.5  Recognition results of cooperative relation
Fig.4  Model Bi-LSTM+ATT metrics versus iteration during training.
ModelsLIE datasetUSE dataset
PrecisionRecallF1 valuePrecisionRecallF1 value
HMM0.480.500.490.330.480.40
Bi-LSTM0.560.490.520.580.500.54
Bi-LSTM+CRF0.610.600.610.650.630.64
PBi-LSTM+CRF (Ours)0.640.610.620.690.700.70
Tab.6  Experimental results of entity extraction
Fig.5  Model loss versus iteration during training.
ClassLIEP datasetUSEP dataset
One-to-one873249
One-to-many23734
Many-to-many6553
One-to-one after coreference resolution4433
Total1219369
Quality0.830.76
Tab.7  Extraction results
SentencesResults
At the signing ceremony, Precitec was the sole seller of Joy Laser in the world.Precitec -.- Joy Laser
At the same time, Anbofu also made a small investment in LeddarTech.Anbofu -.- LeddarTech
In September this year, Sagitar Juchuang signed an agreement with FAW to deepen cooperation, and the two sides will conduct research and development cooperation on smart solid-state lidar vehicle plane-level mass production.FAW -.- Sagitar Juchuang
Like Sagitar Juchuang, it also received investment from BAIC New Energy in October last year.BAIC New Energy -.- Sagitar Juchuang
Xiaopeng Motors officially announced a strategic cooperation with China Unicom Guangzhou Branch.Xiaopeng Motors -.- China Unicom Guangzhou Branch
TRUMPF China and Shanghai Jiao Tong University signed a memorandum of cooperation for the future.Shanghai Jiao Tong University -.- TRUMPF China
Tab.8  Partial extraction results with only two organization entities in sentences
Fig.6  Visualization of partial extraction results.
1 R C Bunescu, R J Mooney, (2005). A shortest path dependency kernel for relation extraction. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Vancouver: Association for Computational Linguistics, 724–731
2 M Eberts, A Ulges, (2021). An end-to-end model for entity-level relation extraction using multi-instance learning. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 3650–3660
3 Z Geng, G Chen, Y Han, G Lu, F Li, (2020). Semantic relation extraction using sequential and tree-structured LSTM with attention. Information Sciences, 509: 183–192
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.09.006
4 R (1995) Grishman. The NYU system for MUC-6 or where’s the syntax? In: Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Message Understanding. Columbia, MD: Association for Computational Linguistics, 167–175
5 M A Hearst, (1992). Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Computational Linguistics. Nantes: Association for Computational Linguistics, 539–545
6 K HumphreysR GaizauskasS AzzamC HuyckB MitchellH CunninghamY Wilks (1998). University of Sheffield: Description of the LaSIE-II system as used for MUC-7. In: Proceedings of the 7th Message Understanding Conference. Fairfax, VA, M98-1007
7 H Isozaki, H Kazawa, (2002). Efficient support vector classifiers for named entity recognition. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Taipei: Association for Computational Linguistics, 1–7
8 S B Kim, K S Han, H C Rim, S H Myaeng, (2006). Some effective techniques for Naive Bayes text classification. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 18( 11): 1457–1466
https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2006.180
9 D P KingmaJ Ba (2014). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint. arXiv:1412.6980
10 J D LaffertyA McCallumF C N (2001) Pereira. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Machine Learning. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 282–289
11 Y LakretzG KruszewskiT DesbordesD HupkesS DehaeneM (2019) Baroni. The emergence of number and syntax units in LSTM language models. In: Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Minneapolis, MN: Association for Computational Linguistics, 11–20
12 X Li, J Feng, Y Meng, Q Han, F Wu, J Li, (2020). A unified MRC framework for named entity recognition. In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 5849–5859
13 Z Li, F Yang, Y Luo, (2019). Context embedding based on Bi-LSTM in semi-supervised biomedical word sense disambiguation. IEEE Access, 7: 72928–72935
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2912584
14 X D Lin, H Peng, B Liu, (2006). Chinese named entity recognition using support vector machines. In: International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics. Dalian: IEEE, 4216–4220
15 P Lison, J Barnes, A Hubin, S Touileb, (2020). Named entity recognition without labelled data: A weak supervision approach. In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1518–1533
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.139
16 G Liu, J Guo, (2019). Bidirectional LSTM with attention mechanism and convolutional layer for text classification. Neurocomputing, 337: 325–338
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.01.078
17 Y LuoF XiaoH (2020) Zhao. Hierarchical contextualized representation for named entity recognition. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY: AAAI Press, 8441–8448
18 T MikolovI SutskeverK ChenG S CorradoJ Dean (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Lake Tahoe, NV: Curran Associates Inc., 3111–3119
19 G A Miller, (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38( 11): 39–41
https://doi.org/10.1145/219717.219748
20 G Nan, Z Guo, I Sekulić, W Lu, (2020). Reasoning with latent structure refinement for document-level relation extraction. In: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1546–1557
21 T NayakH T (2020) Ng. Effective modeling of encoder-decoder architecture for joint entity and relation extraction. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY: AAAI Press, 8528–8535
22 S Park, Y Kim, (2019). A method for sharing cell state for LSTM-based language model. In: International Conference on Intelligence Science: Computer and Information Science. Beijing: Springer, 81–94
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25213-7_6
23 N Reimers, I Gurevych, (2017). Reporting score distributions makes a difference: Performance study of LSTM-networks for sequence tagging. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Copenhagen: Association for Computational Linguistics, 338–348
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D17-1035
24 Y ShenJ Han (2020). Joint extraction of entity and relation with information redundancy elimination. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2011.13565
25 T Shibuya, E Hovy, (2020). Nested named entity recognition via second-best sequence learning and decoding. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8: 605–620
https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00334
26 A Thomas, S Sangeetha, (2020). Deep learning architectures for named entity recognition: A survey. In: Advanced Computing and Intelligent Engineering. Singapore: Springer, 215–225
27 A WaldisL Mazzola (2021). Nested and balanced entity recognition using multi-task learning. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2106.06216
28 T Wang, G Hirst, (2009). Extracting synonyms from dictionary definitions. In: Proceedings of the International Conference RANLP. Borovets: Association for Computational Linguistics, 471–477
29 X Wang, Y Chang, V Sugumaran, X Luo, P Wang, H Zhang, (2021a). Implicit emotion relationship mining based on optimal and majority synthesis from multimodal data prediction. IEEE MultiMedia, 28( 2): 96–105
https://doi.org/10.1109/MMUL.2021.3071495
30 X Wang, L Kou, V Sugumaran, X Luo, H Zhang, (2021b). Emotion correlation mining through deep learning models on natural language text. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 51( 9): 4400–4413
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020.2987064
31 H Yamada, T Kudo, Y Matsumoto, (2002). Japanese named entity extraction using support vector machine. Transactions of Information Processing Society of Japan, 43( 1): 44–53
32 Y Yao, L Rosasco, A Caponnetto, (2007). On early stopping in gradient descent learning. Constructive Approximation, 26( 2): 289–315
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00365-006-0663-2
33 G Zhou, J Su, J Zhang, M Zhang, (2005). Exploring various knowledge in relation extraction. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Computational Linguistics, 427–434
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed