skip to main content
research-article

Enhancing RDF Verbalization with Descriptive and Relational Knowledge

Published:16 June 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

RDF verbalization has received increasing interest, which aims to generate a natural language description of the knowledge base. Sequence-to-sequence models based on Transformer are able to obtain strong performance equipped with pre-trained language models such as BART and T5. However, in spite of the general performance gain introduced by the pre-trained models, the performance of the task is still limited by the small scale of the training dataset. To address the problem, we propose two orthogonal strategies to enhance the representation learning of RDF triples. Concretely, two types of knowledge are introduced, i.e., descriptive knowledge and relational knowledge, respectively. The descriptive knowledge indicates the semantic information of self definition, and the relational knowledge indicates the semantic information learned from the structural context. We further combine the descriptive and relational knowledge together to enhance the representation learning. Experimental results on the WebNLG and SemEval-2010 datasets show that the two types of knowledge can both enhance the model performance, and their combination is able to obtain further improvements in most cases, providing new state-of-the-art results.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Ba Jimmy Lei, Kiros Jamie Ryan, and Hinton Geoffrey E.. 2016. Layer normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Beck Daniel, Haffari Gholamreza, and Cohn Trevor. 2018. Graph-to-sequence learning using gated graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 273283.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [3] Bordes Antoine, Usunier Nicolas, Garcia-Duran Alberto, Weston Jason, and Yakhnenko Oksana. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 26 (2013), 27872795.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Chen Danqi, Bolton Jason, and Manning Christopher D.. 2016. A thorough examination of the CNN/daily mail reading comprehension task. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 23582367.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Damonte Marco and Cohen Shay B.. 2019. Structural neural encoders for AMR-to-text generation. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 36493658.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [6] Denkowski Michael and Lavie Alon. 2014. Meteor universal: Language specific translation evaluation for any target language. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. 376380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Gardent Claire, Shimorina Anastasia, Narayan Shashi, and Perez-Beltrachini Laura. 2017. The WebNLG challenge: Generating text from RDF data. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Natural Language Generation. 124133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Guo Zhijiang, Zhang Yan, Teng Zhiyang, and Lu Wei. 2019. Densely connected graph convolutional networks for graph-to-sequence learning. Trans. Assoc. Computat. Ling. 7 (2019), 297312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Harkous Hamza, Groves Isabel, and Saffari Amir. 2020. Have your text and use it too! End-to-end neural data-to-text generation with semantic fidelity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.06577 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] He Kaiming, Zhang Xiangyu, Ren Shaoqing, and Sun Jian. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 770778.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Hendrickx Iris, Kim Su Nam, Kozareva Zornitsa, Nakov Preslav, Séaghdha Diarmuid Ó., Padó Sebastian, Pennacchiotti Marco, Romano Lorenza, and Szpakowicz Stan. 2010. SemEval-2010 task 8: Multi-way classification of semantic relations between pairs of nominals. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] Kale Mihir. 2020. Text-to-text pre-training for data-to-text tasks. arXiv peprint arXiv:2005.10433 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [13] Kingma Diederik P. and Ba Jimmy. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Kipf Thomas N. and Welling Max. 2017. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] Koncel-Kedziorski Rik, Bekal Dhanush, Luan Yi, Lapata Mirella, and Hajishirzi Hannaneh. 2019. Text generation from knowledge graphs with graph transformers. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 22842293.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [16] Lewis Mike, Liu Yinhan, Goyal Naman, Ghazvininejad Marjan, Mohamed Abdelrahman, Levy Omer, Stoyanov Veselin, and Zettlemoyer Luke. 2020. BART: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 78717880.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Mager Manuel, Astudillo Ramón Fernandez, Naseem Tahira, Sultan Md Arafat, Lee Young-Suk, Florian Radu, and Roukos Salim. 2020. GPT-too: A language-model-first approach for AMR-to-text generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 18461852.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Marcheggiani Diego and Perez-Beltrachini Laura. 2018. Deep graph convolutional encoders for structured data to text generation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Natural Language Generation. 19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Montella Sebastien, Fabre Betty, Urvoy Tanguy, Heinecke Johannes, and Rojas-Barahona Lina. 2020. Denoising pre-training and data augmentation strategies for enhanced RDF verbalization with transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.00571 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. [20] Moryossef Amit, Goldberg Yoav, and Dagan Ido. 2019. Step-by-Step: Separating planning from realization in neural data-to-text generation. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 22672277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. [21] Papineni Kishore, Roukos Salim, Ward Todd, and Zhu Wei-Jing. 2002. LEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 311318.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Popović Maja. 2015. chrF: Character n-gram f-score for automatic MT evaluation. In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. 392395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Radford Alec, Wu Jeffrey, Child Rewon, Luan David, Amodei Dario, and Sutskever Ilya. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog 1, 8 (2019), 9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Raffel Colin, Shazeer Noam, Roberts Adam, Lee Katherine, Narang Sharan, Matena Michael, Zhou Yanqi, Li Wei, and Liu Peter J.. 2019. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10683 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Ribeiro Leonardo F. R., Schmitt Martin, Schütze Hinrich, and Gurevych Iryna. 2020. Investigating pretrained language models for graph-to-text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.08426 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] Ribeiro Leonardo F. R., Zhang Yue, Gardent Claire, and Gurevych Iryna. 2020. Modeling global and local node contexts for text generation from knowledge graphs. Trans. Assoc. Computat. Ling. 8 (2020), 589604.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Scarselli Franco, Gori Marco, Tsoi Ah Chung, Hagenbuchner Markus, and Monfardini Gabriele. 2008. The graph neural network model. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 20, 1 (2008), 6180.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. [28] Snover Matthew, Dorr Bonnie, Schwartz Richard, Micciulla Linnea, and Makhoul John. 2006. A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In Proceedings of Association for Machine Translation in the Americas.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] Sutskever Ilya, Vinyals Oriol, and Le Quoc V.. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS’14). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 31043112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. [30] Trisedya Bayu Distiawan, Qi Jianzhong, Zhang Rui, and Wang Wei. 2018. GTR-LSTM: A triple encoder for sentence generation from RDF data. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 16271637.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. [31] Vaswani Ashish, Shazeer Noam, Parmar Niki, Uszkoreit Jakob, Jones Llion, Gomez Aidan N., Kaiser Łukasz, and Polosukhin Illia. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 59986008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [32] Veličković Petar, Cucurull Guillem, Casanova Arantxa, Romero Adriana, Liò Pietro, and Bengio Yoshua. 2018. Graph attention Networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. [33] Wang Alex, Pruksachatkun Yada, Nangia Nikita, Singh Amanpreet, Michael Julian, Hill Felix, Levy Omer, and Bowman Samuel. 2019. SuperGLUE: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 32663280.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] Wolf Thomas, Debut Lysandre, Sanh Victor, Chaumond Julien, Delangue Clement, Moi Anthony, Cistac Pierric, Rault Tim, Louf Rémi, Funtowicz Morgan, Davison Joe, Shleifer Sam, Platen Patrick von, Ma Clara, Jernite Yacine, Plu Julien, Xu Canwen, Scao Teven Le, Gugger Sylvain, Drame Mariama, Lhoest Quentin, and Rush Alexander M.. 2020. HuggingFace’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] Zhang Zhengyan, Han Xu, Liu Zhiyuan, Jiang Xin, Sun Maosong, and Liu Qun. 2019. ERNIE: Enhanced language representation with informative entities. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 14411451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. [36] Zhao Chao, Walker Marilyn, and Chaturvedi Snigdha. 2020. Bridging the structural gap between encoding and decoding for data-to-text generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 24812491.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Zhao Kang, Xu Hua, Cheng Yue, Li Xiaoteng, and Gao Kai. 2021. Representation iterative fusion based on heterogeneous graph neural network for joint entity and relation extraction. Knowl.-based Syst. 219 (2021), 106888.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Zhu Yaoming, Wan Juncheng, Zhou Zhiming, Chen Liheng, Qiu Lin, Zhang Weinan, Jiang Xin, and Yu Yong. 2019. Triple-to-text: Converting RDF triples into high-quality natural languages via optimizing an inverse KL divergence. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 455464.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Enhancing RDF Verbalization with Descriptive and Relational Knowledge

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing
      ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing  Volume 22, Issue 6
      June 2023
      635 pages
      ISSN:2375-4699
      EISSN:2375-4702
      DOI:10.1145/3604597
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 16 June 2023
      • Online AM: 1 May 2023
      • Accepted: 19 April 2023
      • Revised: 16 February 2023
      • Received: 28 August 2022
      Published in tallip Volume 22, Issue 6

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)169
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text