Cleaning inconsistencies in information extraction via prioritized repairs

Ronald Fagin, B. Kimelfeld, Frederick Reiss, Stijn Vansummeren
{"title":"Cleaning inconsistencies in information extraction via prioritized repairs","authors":"Ronald Fagin, B. Kimelfeld, Frederick Reiss, Stijn Vansummeren","doi":"10.1145/2594538.2594540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The population of a predefined relational schema from textual content, commonly known as Information Extraction (IE), is a pervasive task in contemporary computational challenges associated with Big Data. Since the textual content varies widely in nature and structure (from machine logs to informal natural language), it is notoriously difficult to write IE programs that extract the sought information without any inconsistencies (e.g., a substring should not be annotated as both an address and a person name). Dealing with inconsistencies is hence of crucial importance in IE systems. Industrial-strength IE systems like GATE and IBM SystemT therefore provide a built-in collection of cleaning operations to remove inconsistencies from extracted relations. These operations, however, are collected in an ad-hoc fashion through use cases. Ideally, we would like to allow IE developers to declare their own policies. But existing cleaning operations are defined in an algorithmic way and, hence, it is not clear how to extend the built-in operations without requiring low-level coding of internal or external functions. We embark on the establishment of a framework for declarative cleaning of inconsistencies in IE, though principles of database theory. Specifically, building upon the formalism of document spanners for IE, we adopt the concept of prioritized repairs, which has been recently proposed as an extension of the traditional database repairs to incorporate priorities among conflicting facts. We show that our framework captures the popular cleaning policies, as well as the POSIX semantics for extraction through regular expressions. We explore the problem of determining whether a cleaning declaration is unambiguous (i.e., always results in a single repair), and whether it increases the expressive power of the extraction language. We give both positive and negative results, some of which are general, and some of which apply to policies used in practice.","PeriodicalId":302451,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2594538.2594540","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

Abstract

The population of a predefined relational schema from textual content, commonly known as Information Extraction (IE), is a pervasive task in contemporary computational challenges associated with Big Data. Since the textual content varies widely in nature and structure (from machine logs to informal natural language), it is notoriously difficult to write IE programs that extract the sought information without any inconsistencies (e.g., a substring should not be annotated as both an address and a person name). Dealing with inconsistencies is hence of crucial importance in IE systems. Industrial-strength IE systems like GATE and IBM SystemT therefore provide a built-in collection of cleaning operations to remove inconsistencies from extracted relations. These operations, however, are collected in an ad-hoc fashion through use cases. Ideally, we would like to allow IE developers to declare their own policies. But existing cleaning operations are defined in an algorithmic way and, hence, it is not clear how to extend the built-in operations without requiring low-level coding of internal or external functions. We embark on the establishment of a framework for declarative cleaning of inconsistencies in IE, though principles of database theory. Specifically, building upon the formalism of document spanners for IE, we adopt the concept of prioritized repairs, which has been recently proposed as an extension of the traditional database repairs to incorporate priorities among conflicting facts. We show that our framework captures the popular cleaning policies, as well as the POSIX semantics for extraction through regular expressions. We explore the problem of determining whether a cleaning declaration is unambiguous (i.e., always results in a single repair), and whether it increases the expressive power of the extraction language. We give both positive and negative results, some of which are general, and some of which apply to policies used in practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过优先修复清除信息提取中的不一致
从文本内容中填充预定义的关系模式,通常称为信息提取(IE),是与大数据相关的当代计算挑战中普遍存在的任务。由于文本内容在性质和结构上有很大的不同(从机器日志到非正式的自然语言),因此编写IE程序来提取所查找的信息而没有任何不一致是非常困难的(例如,子字符串不应该同时注释为地址和人名)。因此,处理不一致性在IE系统中是至关重要的。因此,像GATE和IBM SystemT这样的工业级IE系统提供了一个内置的清理操作集合,以从提取的关系中删除不一致的内容。然而,这些操作是通过用例以特别的方式收集的。理想情况下,我们希望允许IE开发者声明他们自己的策略。但是,现有的清理操作是以算法的方式定义的,因此,不清楚如何在不需要对内部或外部函数进行低级编码的情况下扩展内置操作。通过数据库理论的原则,我们着手建立一个框架,用于声明性地清除IE中的不一致性。具体地说,在IE文档生成器的形式主义的基础上,我们采用了优先修复的概念,这是最近提出的传统数据库修复的扩展,将冲突事实中的优先级纳入其中。我们展示了我们的框架捕获了流行的清理策略,以及通过正则表达式进行提取的POSIX语义。我们探讨了确定清理声明是否明确的问题(即,总是导致单个修复),以及它是否增加了提取语言的表达能力。我们给出了积极和消极的结果,有些是一般性的,有些是适用于实际使用的政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Session details: Classics Does query evaluation tractability help query containment? Session details: Web queries and big data On scale independence for querying big data Cleaning inconsistencies in information extraction via prioritized repairs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1