Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Is there an open-source version of the AMR checker? #265

Open
nschneid opened this issue Aug 10, 2023 · 6 comments
Open

Is there an open-source version of the AMR checker? #265

nschneid opened this issue Aug 10, 2023 · 6 comments

Comments

@nschneid
Copy link
Collaborator

@uhermjakob's AMR Editor has a Checker that implements a bunch of heuristics to look for annotation issues, e.g. roles that are used in an invalid context. Is code for this (or anything similar) available?

All I could find is the resource lists at https://amr.isi.edu/download.html

@flipz357
Copy link
Contributor

Do you have any idea what's important in such a tool?

This should be simple:

  • invalid roles: can be checked against frame definition (for English AMR...)
  • invalid senses: see above

But what's are other "annotation issues" that can happen? Introducing a new variable that is already assigned? I guess there can be arbitrary many more heuristics and issuing warnings, just from the top of my head, like matching against dep tree (if there is a neg in dep tree, maybe there's something wrong if the AMR doesn't have a polarity edge etc, and so on)

@nschneid
Copy link
Collaborator Author

My understanding is that the AMR Checker (implemented within the annotation tool) is quite extensive: it highlights words in the sentence that may have been missed, gives hints about many AMR conventions such as those listed in the Dictionary, and so on.

@nschneid
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Aha, found this documentation page: https://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/about-checker.html

@flipz357
Copy link
Contributor

flipz357 commented Aug 14, 2023

Interesting! I guess in 2023 many of these background checks (and more) can also be achieved by checking against the output of a good parser (or, better, an ensemble of parsers, so as to not risk any fitting of annotation to one parser).

That said, I don't know of any of such tools. But, yeah, um, I have long thought of some things in that direction (estimating quality of AMR). Maybe it's of interest, here are some of the musings

image

The source is this paper, page 40 bottom right. It's about assessing quality of automatic parses, but the idea can transfer to human parses.

@flipz357
Copy link
Contributor

flipz357 commented Nov 27, 2023

@nschneid It seems like there's now a new editor https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.10928

Maybe it has some of the features that you want. I also see that they use parser in the loop for suggestion. (but as said above imo this could bear a risk of a bias loop between parsing/annotation)

@jheinecke
Copy link
Contributor

My annotation tool provides a basic validation function (based on the propbank frames (XML)
https://github.com/Orange-OpenSource/metamorphosed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants