AMR Parsing is Far from Solved: GrAPES, the Granular AMR Parsing Evaluation Suite (2023.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representation parsers have improved in recent years, but not solved. |
| Approach: | They propose an evaluation suite that evaluates AMR parsers on a range of phenomena . they find that current parser outputs are far from satisfactory . |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation suite reveals the abilities and shortcomings of current parsers. |
Similar Papers
A Structured Syntax-Semantics Interface for English-AMR Alignment (N18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) annotations do not require explicit mapping between elements of an AMR and the corresponding elements of the sentence that evoke them. |
| Approach: | They devised an expressive framework to align AMR graphs to dependency graphs . their framework explains how 97% of AMR edges are evoked by words or syntax . |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework explains how 97% of AMR edges are evoked by words or syntax. |
A Survey of AMR Applications (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) is a semantic representation that takes the form of a rooted, directed graph. |
| Approach: | They analyze more than 100 papers which use Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) they highlight the range of applications for which AMR has been harnessed and techniques for incorporating it . they also highlight broader AMR engineering patterns and outline areas of future work that seem ripe for AMR incorporation. |
| Outcome: | The results highlight the range of applications for which AMR has been harnessed and the techniques for incorporating it into those applications. |
DocAMR: Multi-Sentence AMR Representation and Evaluation (2022.naacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
Tahira Naseem, Austin Blodgett, Sadhana Kumaravel, Tim O’Gorman, Young-Suk Lee, Jeffrey Flanigan, Ramón Astudillo, Radu Florian, Salim Roukos, Nathan Schneider
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graphs are compared to gold graphs by the Smatch metric, but lack a well-defined representation and evaluation. |
| Approach: | They propose an algorithm for deriving a unified graph representation using a super-sentential annotation method. |
| Outcome: | The proposed algorithm avoids the pitfalls of over-merging and lacks coherence from under merging. |
AMR dependency parsing with a typed semantic algebra (P18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representations (AMRs) are graphs which describe the predicate-argument structure of a sentence. |
| Approach: | They propose a semantic parser which parses strings into tree representations of the compositional structure of an AMR graph. |
| Outcome: | The proposed parser outperforms baselines and standard neural techniques for supertagging and dependency tree parsing. |
AMR Parsing with Latent Structural Information (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representations (AMRs) capture sentence-level semantics structural representations to broad-coverage natural sentences. |
| Approach: | They investigate parsing AMR with explicit dependency structures and interpretable latent structures. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves best results on both AMR 2.0 and AMR 1.0 . the proposed model has been adopted in downstream NLP tasks, including text summarization and question answering. |
“You Are An Expert Linguistic Annotator”: Limits of LLMs as Analyzers of Abstract Meaning Representation (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate proficiency and fluency in the use of language, but do they have the linguistic knowledge to serve as an expert linguistic annotator? |
| Approach: | They examine the successes and limitations of large language models using the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parsing formalism. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models can reproduce the basic format of AMR, as well as some core event, argument, and modifier structure, but they have virtually no fully accurate parses. |
Cross-domain Generalization for AMR Parsing (2022.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parsing aims to predict an AMR graph from textual input. |
| Approach: | They evaluate five representative AMR parsers on five domains and analyze challenges to cross-domain parsing. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method reduces the domain distribution divergence of text and AMR features on two out-of-domain sets. |
Pushing the Limits of AMR Parsing with Self-Learning (2020.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
Young-Suk Lee, Ramón Fernandez Astudillo, Tahira Naseem, Revanth Gangi Reddy, Radu Florian, Salim Roukos
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parsing has experienced a notable growth in performance in the last two years due to the impact of transfer learning and the development of novel architectures specific to AMR. |
| Approach: | They propose to use AMR annotations to generate synthetic text and refine actions oracle without additional human annotations for AMR parsing. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models improve on AMR 1.0 and 2.0 without human annotations. |
World Knowledge for Abstract Meaning Representation Parsing (L18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parsers are based on annotated graphs, but there is still room for improvement . |
| Approach: | They examine the role played by world knowledge in parsing errors in a state-of-the-art parser . they examine the effects of different types of world knowledge on parsers . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves on multiple fine-grained metrics, including a 6% increase in named entity F-score, and provides insight into the potential of world knowledge for future work in Abstract Meaning Representation parsing. |
The Role of Reentrancies in Abstract Meaning Representation Parsing (2020.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parsers make errors with respect to reentrancies, which complicates AMR parsing and requires specific transitions. |
| Approach: | They propose to categorize the types of errors AMR parsers make with respect to reentrancies and find that correcting these errors provides an in-crease of up to 5% Smatch in parsing perfor- mance and 20% in reen- trancy prediction. |
| Outcome: | The proposed formalism can predict reentrancies with 5% accuracy and 20% accuracy. |