
Ponkiya et al. (2020) is the current state of art
which poses the problem as generation of masked
tokens using a pretrained T5 model (Raffel et al.,
2020) to get free paraphrase interpretations in a
completely unsupervised manner. This leads to bet-
ter performance than techniques that use the avail-
able training data. However, with the PRONCI
dataset, we do find that supervised models do out-
perform zero-shot models due to the scale.
Applications:
Noun compound interpretations
have been helpful in translation of noun compounds
by either using a one-to-one mapping of interpreted
prepositions (Paul et al.,2010) or using recursive
translation patterns (Balyan and Chatterjee,2015).
In Question Answering systems, they have been
used for disambiguating different types of noun-
noun compounds in passage analysis (Ahn et al.,
2005). They have also been useful for normalizing
text that can help textual entailment (Nakov,2013)
and as auxiliary semantic annotation modules to
improve parsing (Tratz,2011). In this work, we
show their use in the task of Open IE.
Open Information Extraction
(Open IE)
(Banko et al.,2007;Mausam,2016;Kolluru et al.,
2020b) involves extracting a set of tuples from the
sentence where each field of the tuple contains
phrases from the sentence itself. This makes it
ontology-agnostic and allows it to be used for
creation of domain agnostic Open Knowledge
Bases (Broscheit et al.,2020;Vashishth et al.,
2018;Gupta et al.,2019). The relations are often
verb-based (Fader et al.,2011) but can also be
noun-mediated (Pal and Mausam,2016) or involve
implicit information (Soderland et al.,2015).
Fader et al. (2011) relied on high precision rules
to extract a wide variety of verb-mediated relations.
Soderland et al. (2015) uses dependency paths
for generating high precision extractions based on
three implicit relations, has job title,has city and
has nationality.Pal and Mausam (2016) consid-
ers noun mediated relations that can be extracted
from compound noun phrases while dealing with
challenges involved with denonyms and compound
relational nouns. However, none of them consider
implicit relations present in noun compounds.
Moreover, recent state of art Open IE systems
like OpenIE6 (Kolluru et al.,2020a) and Gen2OIE
(Kolluru et al.,2022) rely on bootstrapped exam-
ples (generated using OpenIE4 (Pal and Mausam,
2016;Christensen et al.,2011)) for training. There-
Task Instructions
1. Your goal is to describe the relation between the two
words by filling in the blanks.
2. You can write up to five words (or less!) 3. The
resulting relation should form a valid English sentence
(see below for an example).
4. You can consult an example sentence as additional
context, but the relation you write should be inferred only
from the two words, and not by additional information.
5. If it is a name, entity, location or if you can’t describe
the relation between the words, please leave the relation
blank.
Examples
1. Coke Spokesman is a worker of Coke.
2. Leake government is located in Leake.
3. Capitol Hill
Pitfalls
1. Coke Spokesman employment Coke.
The relation should form a valid sentence.
2. Leake government has a failed goverment.
The relation should be inferred by the words themselves
and not by additional context.
Table 2: Instructions for the task along with examples
and common pitfalls that are provided to the human
workers from AMT for constructing PRONCI dataset.
fore they only generate extractions that contain
phrases from the text and miss the cases where the
content words are implicit. OpenIE6 (Kolluru et al.,
2020a) adopts a pipeline approach to integrate con-
junction splitting into Open IE outputs, where co-
ordination analysis and sentence splitting is per-
formed as a preprocessing step, and the Open IE
extractions are generated from the split sentences
which are then merged.
3 Problem Definition
Interpretations of noun compounds are meant to
expose the expressed implicit relation. Free-form
paraphrases as interpretations provide flexibility for
expressing relations implied in noun compounds,
overcoming the limitations associated with choos-
ing from a fixed set of classes or templates at the
cost of a possibly non-consolidated representation,
i.e., where similar-meaning noun compounds are
represented differently. Hence, we define semantic
interpretation of a PNC as a free-form paraphrase
that exposes the implicit relation between the con-
stituent nouns, if any relation exists, else identify it
as non-compositional ([NON-CMP]).
SemInt(pnc) = (Paraphrase,if reln. exists
[NON-CMP],if reln. absent