The task of AMR-to-text generation is to generate grammatical text that sustains the semantic meaning for a given AMR graph. We at- tack the task by first partitioning the AMR graph into smaller fragments, and then generating the translation for each fragment, before finally deciding the order by solving an asymmetric generalized traveling salesman problem (AGTSP). A Maximum Entropy classifier is trained to estimate the traveling costs, and a TSP solver is used to find the optimized solution. The final model reports a BLEU score of 22.44 on the SemEval-2016 Task8 dataset.
Our work is related to prior work on AMR @cite_13 . There has been a list of work on AMR parsing @cite_19 @cite_17 @cite_18 @cite_14 @cite_11 @cite_0 , which predicts the AMR structures for a given sentence. On the reverse direction, and our work here study sentence generation from a given AMR graph. Different from who map a input AMR graph into a tree before linearization, we apply synchronous rules consisting of AMR graph fragments and text to directly transfer a AMR graph into a sentence. In addition to AMR parsing and generation, there has also been work using AMR as a semantic representation in machine translation @cite_4 .
@cite_18 @cite_14 @cite_11 @cite_4 @cite_0 @cite_19 @cite_13 @cite_17
2949889664 2296308987 2250777616 2251071803
We present a novel abstractive summarization framework that draws on the recent development of a treebank for the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR). In this framework, the source text is parsed to a set of AMR graphs, the graphs are transformed into a summary graph, and then text is generated from the summary graph. We focus on the graph-to-graph transformation that reduces the source semantic graph into a summary graph, making use of an existing AMR parser and assuming the eventual availability of an AMR-to-text generator. The framework is data-driven, trainable, and not specifically designed for a particular domain. Experiments on gold-standard AMR annotations and system parses show promising results. Code is available at: this https URL We present a two-stage framework to parse a sentence into its Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR). We first use a dependency parser to generate a dependency tree for the sentence. In the second stage, we design a novel transition-based algorithm that transforms the dependency tree to an AMR graph. There are several advantages with this approach. First, the dependency parser can be trained on a training set much larger than the training set for the tree-to-graph algorithm, resulting in a more accurate AMR parser overall. Our parser yields an improvement of 5 absolute in F-measure over the best previous result. Second, the actions that we design are linguistically intuitive and capture the regularities in the mapping between the dependency structure and the AMR of a sentence. Third, our parser runs in nearly linear time in practice in spite of a worst-case complexity ofO(n 2 ). In this demonstration, we will present our online parser that allows users to submit any sentence and obtain an analysis following the specification of AMR (, 2014) to a large extent. This AMR analysis is generated by a small set of rules that convert a native Logical Form analysis provided by a preexisting parser (see Vanderwende, 2015) into the AMR format. While we demonstrate the performance of our AMR parser on data sets annotated by the LDC, we will focus attention in the demo on the following two areas: 1) we will make available AMR annotations for the data sets that were used to develop our parser, to serve as a supplement to the LDC data sets, and 2) we will demonstrate AMR parsers for German, French, Spanish and Japanese that make use of the same small set of LF-to-AMR conversion rules. We align pairs of English sentences and corresponding Abstract Meaning Representations (AMR), at the token level. Such alignments will be useful for downstream extraction of semantic interpretation and generation rules. Our method involves linearizing AMR structures and performing symmetrized EM training. We obtain 86.5 and 83.1 alignment F score on development and test sets.