Fariz Darari

Paramita Mirza, Simon Razniewski, Fariz Darari et al.

Information extraction traditionally focuses on extracting relations between identifiable entities, such as <Monterey, locatedIn, California>. Yet, texts often also contain Counting information, stating that a subject is in a specific relation with a number of objects, without mentioning the objects themselves, for example, "California is divided into 58 counties". Such counting quantifiers can help in a variety of tasks such as query answering or knowledge base curation, but are neglected by prior work. This paper develops the first full-fledged system for extracting counting information from text, called CINEX. We employ distant supervision using fact counts from a knowledge base as training seeds, and develop novel techniques for dealing with several challenges: (i) non-maximal training seeds due to the incompleteness of knowledge bases, (ii) sparse and skewed observations in text sources, and (iii) high diversity of linguistic patterns. Experiments with five human-evaluated relations show that CINEX can achieve 60% average precision for extracting counting information. In a large-scale experiment, we demonstrate the potential for knowledge base enrichment by applying CINEX to 2,474 frequent relations in Wikidata. CINEX can assert the existence of 2.5M facts for 110 distinct relations, which is 28% more than the existing Wikidata facts for these relations.

Paramita Mirza, Simon Razniewski, Fariz Darari et al.

Information extraction (IE) from text has largely focused on relations between individual entities, such as who has won which award. However, some facts are never fully mentioned, and no IE method has perfect recall. Thus, it is beneficial to also tap contents about the cardinalities of these relations, for example, how many awards someone has won. We introduce this novel problem of extracting cardinalities and discusses the specific challenges that set it apart from standard IE. We present a distant supervision method using conditional random fields. A preliminary evaluation results in precision between 3% and 55%, depending on the difficulty of relations.