skip to main content

Title: Precise temporal slot filling via truth finding with data-driven commonsense
The task of temporal slot filling (TSF) is to extract values of specific attributes for a given entity, called “facts”, as well as temporal tags of the facts, from text data. While existing work denoted the temporal tags as single time slots, in this paper, we introduce and study the task of Precise TSF (PTSF), that is to fill two precise temporal slots including the beginning and ending time points. Based on our observation from a news corpus, most of the facts should have the two points, however, fewer than 0.1% of them have time expressions in the documents. On the other hand, the documents’ post time, though often available, is not as precise as the time expressions of being the time a fact was valid. Therefore, directly decomposing the time expressions or using an arbitrary post-time period cannot provide accurate results for PTSF. The challenge of PTSF lies in finding precise time tags in noisy and incomplete temporal contexts in the text. To address the challenge, we propose an unsupervised approach based on the philosophy of truth finding. The approach has two modules that mutually enhance each other: One is a reliability estimator of fact extractors conditionally on the more » temporal contexts; the other is a fact trustworthiness estimator based on the extractor’s reliability. Commonsense knowledge (e.g., one country has only one president at a specific time) was automatically generated from data and used for inferring false claims based on trustworthy facts. For the purpose of evaluation, we manually collect hundreds of temporal facts from Wikipedia as ground truth, including country’s presidential terms and sport team’s player career history. Experiments on a large news dataset demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency of our proposed algorithm. « less
Authors:
;
Award ID(s):
1849816
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10188920
Journal Name:
Knowledge and Information Systems
ISSN:
0219-1377
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. A key challenge for artificial intelligence in the legal field is to determine from the text of a party’s litigation brief whether, and why, it will succeed or fail. This paper shows a proof-of-concept test case from the United States: predicting outcomes of post-grant inter partes review (IPR) proceedings for invalidating patents. The objectives are to compare decision-tree and deep learning methods, validate interpretability methods, and demonstrate outcome prediction based on party briefs. Specifically, this study compares and validates two distinct approaches: (1) representing documents with term frequency inverse document frequency (TF-IDF), training XGBoost gradient-boosted decision-tree models, and using SHAP for interpretation. (2) Deep learning of document text in context, using convolutional neural networks (CNN) with attention, and comparing LIME and attention visualization for interpretability. The methods are validated on the task of automatically determining case outcomes from unstructured written decision opinions, and then used to predict trial institution or denial based on the patent owner’s preliminary response brief. The results show how interpretable deep learning architecture classifies successful/unsuccessful response briefs on temporally separated training and test sets. More accurate prediction remains challenging, likely due to the fact-specific, technical nature of patent cases and changes in applicable law and jurisprudencemore »over time.« less
  2. With the rapid growth of online information services, a sheer volume of news data becomes available. To help people quickly digest the explosive information,we define a newproblem – schema-based news event profiling – profiling events reported in open-domain news corpora, with a set of slots and slot-value pairs for each event, where the set of slots forms the schema of an event type. Such profiling not only provides readers with concise views of events, but also facilitates various applications such as information retrieval, knowledge graph construction and question answering. It is however a quite challenging task. The first challenge is to find out events and event types because they are both initially unknown. The second difficulty is the lack of pre-defined event-type schemas. Lastly, even with the schemas extracted, to generate event profiles from them is still essential yet demanding. To address these challenges, we propose a fully automatic, unsupervised, three-step framework to obtain event profiles. First, we develop a Bayesian non-parametric model to detect events and event types by exploiting the slot expressions of the entities mentioned in news articles. Second, we propose an unsupervised embedding model for schema induction that encodes the insight: an entity may serve asmore »the values of multiple slots in an event, but if it appears in more sentences along with the same set of more entities in the event, its slots in these sentences tend to be similar. Finally, we build event profiles by extracting slot values for each event based on the slots’ expression patterns. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work on schema-based profiling for news events. Experimental results on a large news corpus demonstrate the superior performance of our method against the state-of-the-art baselines on event detection, schema induction and event profiling.« less
  3. Recognizing entity synonyms from text has become a crucial task in many entity-leveraging applications. However, discovering entity synonyms from domain-specific text corpora (e.g., news articles, scientific papers) is rather challenging. Current systems take an entity name string as input to find out other names that are synonymous, ignoring the fact that often times a name string can refer to multiple entities (e.g., “apple” could refer to both Apple Inc and the fruit apple). Moreover, most existing methods require training data manually created by domain experts to construct supervised learning systems. In this paper, we study the problem of automatic synonym discovery with knowledge bases, that is, identifying synonyms for knowledge base entities in a given domain-specific corpus. The manually-curated synonyms for each entity stored in a knowledge base not only form a set of name strings to disambiguate the meaning for each other, but also can serve as “distant” supervision to help determine important features for the task. We propose a novel framework, called DPE, to integrate two kinds of mutually complementing signals for synonym discovery, i.e., distributional features based on corpus-level statistics and textual patterns based on local contexts. In particular, DPE jointly optimizes the two kinds of signalsmore »in conjunction with distant supervision, so that they can mutually enhance each other in the training stage. At the inference stage, both signals will be utilized to discover synonyms for the given entities. Experimental results prove the effectiveness of the proposed framework.« less
  4. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEGmore »channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9.« less
  5. Semiring provenance is a successful approach, originating in database theory, to providing detailed information on how atomic facts combine to yield the result of a query. In particular, general provenance semirings of polynomials or formal power series provide precise descriptions of the evaluation strategies or “proof trees” for the query. By evaluating these descriptions in specific application semirings, one can extract practical information for instance about the confidence of a query or the cost of its evaluation. This paper develops semiring provenance for very general logical languages featuring the full interaction between negation and fixed-point inductions or, equivalently, arbitrary interleavings of least and greatest fixed points. This also opens the door to provenance analysis applications for modal μ-calculus and temporal logics, as well as for finite and infinite model-checking games. Interestingly, the common approach based on Kleene’s Fixed-Point Theorem for ω-continuous semirings is not sufficient for these general languages. We show that an adequate framework for the provenance analysis of full fixed-point logics is provided by semirings that are (1) fully continuous, and (2) absorptive. Full continuity guarantees that provenance values of least and greatest fixed-points are well-defined. Absorptive semirings provide a symmetry between least and greatest fixed-points and makemore »sure that provenance values of greatest fixed points are informative. We identify semirings of generalized absorptive polynomials S∞[X] and prove universal properties that make them the most general appropriate semirings for our framework. These semirings have the further property of being (3) chain-positive, which is responsible for having truth-preserving interpretations that give non-zero values to all true formulae. We relate the provenance analysis of fixed-point formulae with provenance values of plays and strategies in the associated model-checking games. Specifically, we prove that the provenance value of a fixed point formula gives precise information on the evaluation strategies in these games.« less