Difference between revisions of "Comparing Unsupervised Learning of Narrative Event Chains and Mining the web for fine-grained semantic verb relations"
(→Method) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Method== | ==Method== | ||
| − | Paper 2 uses approach motivated by mutual information to compute strength of relation between verb pairs and surface pattern. Paper 1 uses mutual information motivated approach to induce narrative events. It uses Support Vector Machines temporal ordering of connected events. | + | Paper 2 uses approach motivated by mutual information to compute strength of relation between verb pairs and surface pattern. Paper 1 uses mutual information motivated approach to induce narrative events. It uses Support Vector Machines for temporal ordering of connected events. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Dataset== | == Dataset== | ||
Revision as of 01:58, 6 November 2012
Papers
1. Unsupervised Learning of Narrative Event Chains, by N. Chambers, D. Jurafsky. [1]
2. VerbOcean:Mining the Web for Fine-Grained Semantic Verb Relations, by T. Chklovski, P. Pantel. [2]
Problem
Goal of first paper is to extract narrative event chains using unsupervised methods. Whereas, goal of second paper is to find the relation between verbs. Relations considered in second paper are similarity, strength, antonymy, enablement, and temporal relations.
Method
Paper 2 uses approach motivated by mutual information to compute strength of relation between verb pairs and surface pattern. Paper 1 uses mutual information motivated approach to induce narrative events. It uses Support Vector Machines for temporal ordering of connected events.
Dataset
Paper 1 uses a Gigaword corpus. Whereas, in Paper 2 Google is used to find number of hits for relation verb pair and surface pattern .
Additional Questions
1. How much time did you spend reading the (new, non-wikified) paper you summarized? 2 hour
2. How much time did you spend reading the old wikified paper? 1 hours
3. How much time did you spend reading the summary of the old paper? 10 minutes
4. How much time did you spend reading background materiel?
5. Was there a study plan for the old paper?
