AI helps you reading Science

AI generates interpretation videos

AI extracts and analyses the key points of the paper to generate videos automatically


pub
Go Generating

AI Traceability

AI parses the academic lineage of this thesis


Master Reading Tree
Generate MRT

AI Insight

AI extracts a summary of this paper


Weibo:
Many traditional approaches for Knowledge graph-powered Question answering are based on semantic parsers, which first map a question to formal meaning representation and translate it to a Knowledge graph query

Variational Reasoning for Question Answering with Knowledge Graph.

national conference on artificial intelligence, (2018)

Cited by: 131|Views545
EI
Full Text
Bibtex
Weibo

Abstract

Knowledge graph (KG) is known to be helpful for the task of question answering (QA), since it provides well-structured relational information between entities, and allows one to further infer indirect facts. However, it is challenging to build QA systems which can learn to reason over knowledge graphs based on question-answer pairs alone....More

Code:

Data:

0
Introduction
  • Question answering (QA) has been a long-standing research problem in Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence.
  • When the answer is not a direct neighbor of the topic entity in question, which requires logic reasoning over the KG, the neural approaches usually perform poorly.
  • There are very few explicit annotations of the exact entity present in the question, the type of the questions, and the exact logic reasoning steps along the knowledge graph leading to the answer.
Highlights
  • Question answering (QA) has been a long-standing research problem in Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
  • Thanks to the creation of large-scale knowledge graphs such as DBPedia (Auer et al 2007) and Freebase (Bollacker et al 2008), Question answering systems can be armed with well-structured knowledge on specific and open domains
  • Many traditional approaches for Knowledge graph-powered Question answering are based on semantic parsers (Clarke et al 2010; Liang, Jordan, and Klein 2011; Berant et al 2013; Yih et al 2015), which first map a question to formal meaning representation and translate it to a Knowledge graph query
  • With the recent success of deep learning, some end-to-end solutions based on neural networks have been proposed and show very promising performance on benchmark datasets,
  • Logic reasoning on the Knowledge graph is required for multi-hop questions such as “Who have co-authored papers with ...?”
  • Vanilla: Since all the topic entities are labeled, Vanilla mainly evaluates the ability of logic reasoning
Results
  • Note that fine-grained annotation is not present, such as the exact entity present in the question, question type, or the exact logic reasoning steps along the knowledge graph leading to the answer.
  • A QA system with KG should be able to handle noisy entity in questions and learn multi-hop reasoning directly from question-answer pairs.
  • Suppose the question is embedded using a neural network fqt(·) : q → Rd, which captures the question type and implies the type of logic reasoning the authors need to perform over knowledge graph.
  • There is an existing public QA dataset named WikiMovies3, which consists of question-answer pairs in the domain of movies and provides a medium-sized knowledge graph (Miller, Fisch, and et.
  • 21.1 15.3 15.3 12.1 is not able to evaluate the ability of reasoning; 2) there is no noise on the topic entity in question, so it can be located in the knowledge graph; 3) it is generated from very limited number of text templates, which is easy to be exploited by models and of limited practical value.
  • Proposed Key-Value Memory Networks (KV-MemNN), and reported state-of-the-art results at that time on WikiMovies; 2) Bordes, Chopra, and Weston’s QA system tries to embed the inference subgraph for reasoning (Bordes, Chopra, and Weston 2014), but the representation is an unordered bag-of-relationships and neighbor entities; 3) the “supervised embedding” is considered as yet another baseline method, which is a simple approach but often works surprisingly well as reported in (Dodge et al 2015).
  • Vanilla-EU: Without topic entity labels, all reasoning-based methods are getting worse on multi-hop questions.
Conclusion
  • Supervised embedding gets better in this case, since it just learns to remember the pair of question and answer entities.
  • Since the framework uses variational method to jointly learn the entity recognizer and reasoning graph embedding, the authors here do the model ablation to answer the following two questions: 1) is the reasoning graph embedding approach necessary for inference?
  • Importance of reasoning graph embedding: As the results shown in Table 1, the proposed VRN outperforms all the other baselines, especially in 3-hop setting.
Summary
  • Question answering (QA) has been a long-standing research problem in Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence.
  • When the answer is not a direct neighbor of the topic entity in question, which requires logic reasoning over the KG, the neural approaches usually perform poorly.
  • There are very few explicit annotations of the exact entity present in the question, the type of the questions, and the exact logic reasoning steps along the knowledge graph leading to the answer.
  • Note that fine-grained annotation is not present, such as the exact entity present in the question, question type, or the exact logic reasoning steps along the knowledge graph leading to the answer.
  • A QA system with KG should be able to handle noisy entity in questions and learn multi-hop reasoning directly from question-answer pairs.
  • Suppose the question is embedded using a neural network fqt(·) : q → Rd, which captures the question type and implies the type of logic reasoning we need to perform over knowledge graph.
  • There is an existing public QA dataset named WikiMovies3, which consists of question-answer pairs in the domain of movies and provides a medium-sized knowledge graph (Miller, Fisch, and et.
  • 21.1 15.3 15.3 12.1 is not able to evaluate the ability of reasoning; 2) there is no noise on the topic entity in question, so it can be located in the knowledge graph; 3) it is generated from very limited number of text templates, which is easy to be exploited by models and of limited practical value.
  • Proposed Key-Value Memory Networks (KV-MemNN), and reported state-of-the-art results at that time on WikiMovies; 2) Bordes, Chopra, and Weston’s QA system tries to embed the inference subgraph for reasoning (Bordes, Chopra, and Weston 2014), but the representation is an unordered bag-of-relationships and neighbor entities; 3) the “supervised embedding” is considered as yet another baseline method, which is a simple approach but often works surprisingly well as reported in (Dodge et al 2015).
  • Vanilla-EU: Without topic entity labels, all reasoning-based methods are getting worse on multi-hop questions.
  • Supervised embedding gets better in this case, since it just learns to remember the pair of question and answer entities.
  • Since our framework uses variational method to jointly learn the entity recognizer and reasoning graph embedding, we here do the model ablation to answer the following two questions: 1) is the reasoning graph embedding approach necessary for inference?
  • Importance of reasoning graph embedding: As the results shown in Table 1, our proposed VRN outperforms all the other baselines, especially in 3-hop setting.
Tables
  • Table1: Test results (% hits@1) on Vanilla and Vanilla-EU datasets. EU stands for entity unlabeled
  • Table2: Test results (% hits@1) on NTM-EU and Audio-EU datasets. EU stands for entity unlabeled
Download tables as Excel
Related work
Funding
  • This project was supported in part by NSF IIS-1218749, NIH BIGDATA 1R01GM108341, NSF CAREER IIS-1350983, NSF IIS-1639792 EAGER, NSF CNS-1704701, ONR N00014-15-1-2340, Intel ISTC, NVIDIA and Amazon AWS
Reference
  • Atwood, J., and Towsley, D. 2016. Diffusion-convolutional neural networks. In NIPS.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Auer, S.; Bizer, C.; Kobilarov, G.; Lehmann, J.; Cyganiak, R.; and Ives, Z. 2007. Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data. The semantic web.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Berant, J.; Chou, A.; Frostig, R.; and Liang, P. 201Semantic parsing on freebase from question-answer pairs. In EMNLP.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Bollacker, K.; Evans, C.; Paritosh, P.; Sturge, T.; and Taylor, J. 2008. Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In SIGMOD.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Bordes, A.; Chopra, S.; and Weston, J. 2014. Question answering with subgraph embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.3676.
    Findings
  • Clarke, J.; Goldwasser, D.; Chang, M.-W.; and Roth, D. 2010. Driving semantic parsing from the world’s response. In Proceedings of the fourteenth conference on computational natural language learning.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Dai, H.; Dai, B.; and Song, L. 2016. Discriminative embeddings of latent variable models for structured data. In ICML.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Dodge, J.; Gane, A.; Zhang, X.; Bordes, A.; Chopra, S.; Miller, A.; Szlam, A.; and Weston, J. 2015. Evaluating prerequisite qualities for learning end-to-end dialog systems. arXiv.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Dong, X.; Gabrilovich, E.; Heitz, G.; Horn, W.; Lao, N.; Murphy, K.; Strohmann, T.; Sun, S.; and Zhang, W. 2014. Knowledge vault: A web-scale approach to probabilistic knowledge fusion. In SIGKDD.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Duvenaud, D. K.; Maclaurin, D.; Iparraguirre, J.; Bombarell, R.; Hirzel, T.; Aspuru-Guzik, A.; and Adams, R. P. 2015. Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular fingerprints. In NIPS.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Guu, K.; Miller, J.; and Liang, P. 2015. Traversing knowledge graphs in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.01094.
    Findings
  • He, D.; Xia, Y.; Qin, T.; Wang, L.; Yu, N.; Liu, T.; and Ma, W.-Y. 2016. Dual learning for machine translation. In NIPS.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Höffner, K.; Walter, S.; Marx, E.; Usbeck, R.; Lehmann, J.; and Ngonga Ngomo, A.-C. 2016. Survey on challenges of question answering in the semantic web. Semantic Web (Preprint):1–26.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Irsoy, O., and Cardie, C. 20Deep recursive neural networks for compositionality in language. In NIPS.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Johnson, D. D. 2017. Learning graphical state transitions. In ICLR.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Kumar, A.; Irsoy, O.; and et. al. 2015. Ask me anything: Dynamic memory networks for natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.07285.
    Findings
  • Kwiatkowski, T.; Choi, E.; Artzi, Y.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2013. Scaling semantic parsers with on-the-fly ontology matching. In EMNLP.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Li, Y.; Tarlow, D.; Brockschmidt, M.; and Zemel, R. 2015. Gated graph sequence neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05493.
    Findings
  • Liang, C.; Berant, J.; Le, Q.; Forbus, K. D.; and Lao, N. 2016. Neural symbolic machines: Learning semantic parsers on freebase with weak supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.00020.
    Findings
  • Liang, P.; Jordan, M. I.; and Klein, D. 2011. Learning dependencybased compositional semantics. In ACL.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Marx, E.; Usbeck, R.; Ngomo, A.-C. N.; and et. al. 2014. Towards an open question answering architecture. In ICSS.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Miller, A.; Fisch, A.; and et. al. 2016. Key-value memory networks for directly reading documents. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03126.
    Findings
  • Mnih, A., and Gregor, K. 2014. Neural variational inference and learning in belief networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.0030.
    Findings
  • Mou, L.; Li, G.; Zhang, L.; Wang, T.; and Jin, Z. 2016. Convolutional neural networks over tree structures for programming language processing. In AAAI.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Neelakantan, A.; Le, Q. V.; Abadi, M.; McCallum, A.; and Amodei, D. 2016. Learning a natural language interface with neural programmer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.08945.
    Findings
  • Neelakantan, A.; Roth, B.; and McCallum, A. 2015. Compositional vector space models for knowledge base completion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.06662.
    Findings
  • Pasupat, P., and Liang, P. 2015. Compositional semantic parsing on semi-structured tables. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.00305.
    Findings
  • Rao, D.; McNamee, P.; and Dredze, M. 2013. Entity linking: Finding extracted entities in a knowledge base. In Multi-source, multilingual information extraction and summarization. Springer.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Socher, R.; Chen, D.; Manning, C. D.; and Ng, A. 2013a. Reasoning with neural tensor networks for knowledge base completion. In NIPS.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Socher, R.; Perelygin, A.; Wu, J. Y.; Chuang, J.; Manning, C. D.; Ng, A. Y.; and Potts, C. 2013b. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In EMNLP.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Sukhbaatar, S.; Weston, J.; Fergus, R.; et al. 2015. End-to-end memory networks. In NIPS.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Toutanova, K.; Lin, X. V.; Yih, W.-t.; Poon, H.; and Quirk, C. 2016. Compositional learning of embeddings for relation paths in knowledge bases and text. In ACL.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Weston, J.; Chopra, S.; and Bordes, A. 2014. Memory networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.3916.
    Findings
  • Williams, R. J. 1992. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforcement learning. Machine Learning.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Yang, Y., and Chang, M.-W. 2016. S-mart: Novel tree-based structured learning algorithms applied to tweet entity linking. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08075.
    Findings
  • Yang, Z.; He, X.; Gao, J.; Deng, L.; and Smola, A. 2015. Stacked attention networks for image question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.02274.
    Findings
  • Yih, W.-t.; Chang, M.-W.; He, X.; and Gao, J. 2015. Semantic parsing via staged query graph generation: Question answering with knowledge base. In ACL.
    Google ScholarFindings
Your rating :
0

 

Tags
Comments
小科