Cited by 46

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Coupled temporal scoping of relational facts

Talukdar, Partha Pratim, Wijaya, Derry, Mitchell, Tom·2012·Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining

Abstract

Recent research has made significant advances in automatically constructing knowledge bases by extracting relational facts (e.g., Bill Clinton-presidentOf-US) from large text corpora. Temporally scoping such relational facts in the knowledge base (i.e., determining that Bill Clinton-presidentOf-US is true only during the period 1993 - 2001) is an important, but relatively unexplored problem. In this paper, we propose a joint inference framework for this task, which leverages fact-specific temporal constraints, and weak supervision in the form of a few labeled examples. Our proposed framework, CoTS (Coupled Temporal Scoping), exploits temporal containment, alignment, succession, and mutual exclusion constraints among facts from within and across relations. Our contribution is multi-fold. Firstly, while most previous research has focused on micro-reading approaches for temporal scoping, we pose it in a macro-reading fashion, as a change detection in a time series of facts' features computed from a large number of documents. Secondly, to the best of our knowledge, there is no other work that has used joint inference for temporal scoping. We show that joint inference is effective compared to doing temporal scoping of individual facts independently. We conduct our experiments on large scale open-domain publicly available time-stamped datasets, such as English Gigaword Corpus and Google Books Ngrams, demonstrating CoTS's effectiveness.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2124295.2124307

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CoTS temporally scopes relational facts based on change detection in a time series of the number of facts from the Google Books Ngram and Gigaword datasets.

    “In contrast, CoTS [Talukdar et al. 2012] temporally scopes relational facts based on change detection in a time series of the number of facts from the Google Books Ngram [Michel et al. 2011] and Gigaword [Graff et al. 2003] datasets.”

    From Survey of Temporal Information Retrieval and Related Applications (2015) · cites this paper as Talukdar et al. 2012

  • An integer linear program incorporating temporal constraints temporally scopes the correlated facts and guarantees their temporal consistency.

    “As done above, an integer linear program incorporating temporal constraints temporally scopes the correlated facts and guarantees their temporal consistency.”

    From Survey of Temporal Information Retrieval and Related Applications (2015) · cites this paper as Talukdar et al. 2012

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. 10.1145/1328964.1328968 · DOI
  2. 10.1145/1963405.1963469 · DOI
  3. Banko M., 2007, Proceedings of IJCAI
  4. Bethard S., 2007, In In SemEval-, 2007
  5. Boguraev B., 2005, Proceedings of IJCAI
  6. Carlson A., 2010, Proceedings of AAAI
  7. 10.5555/1613715.1613803 · DOI
  8. Chang M.W., 2008, Proceedings of the 23rd National Conference on Artificial intelligence
  9. 10.1145/988672.988687 · DOI
  10. Gospodnetic O., 2005, Manning
  11. Graff D., 2003, Linguistic Data Consortium
  12. Ling X., 2010, Proceedings of AAAI
  13. 10.3115/1220175.1220270 · DOI
  14. J.B. Michel Y.K. Shen A.P. Aiden A. Veres M.K. Gray J.P. Pickett D. Hoiberg D. Clancy P. Norvig J. Orwant etal Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331(6014) 2011. J.B. Michel Y.K. Shen A.P. Aiden A. Veres M.K. Gray J.P. Pickett D. Hoiberg D. Clancy P. Norvig J. Orwant et al. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331(6014) 2011. · DOI
  15. Puscasu G., 2007, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on SemEval
  16. Pustejovsky J., 2003, Fifth International Workshop on Computational Semantics
  17. Gaizauskas R., 2003, Corpus Linguistics
  18. 10.1007/s10994-006-5833-1 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1145/1242572.1242667 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.5555/3121646.3121676 · DOI
  21. 10.5555/1621474.1621488 · DOI
  22. 10.3115/1225753.1225774 · DOI
  23. Wang Y., 2010, MUD Workshop
  24. 10.1145/2063576.2063698 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1145/1739041.1739130 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1007/978-3-642-22970-1_1 · DOI
  27. 10.5555/1687878.1687936 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Talukdar, P. P., Wijaya, D., & Mitchell, T.
Affiliations
CMU, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2012-02-08
Pages
73-82
Cited by
46
References
1

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review