Coherence and Coreference Introduction to Discourse and Dialogue CS 359 October 2, 2001.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Referring Expressions: Definition Referring expressions are words or phrases, the semantic interpretation of which is a discourse entity (also called referent)
Advertisements

Syntactic Complexity and Cohesion
Specialized models and ranking for coreference resolution Pascal Denis ALPAGE Project Team INRIA Rocquencourt F Le Chesnay, France Jason Baldridge.
Semantics (Representing Meaning)
Discourse Analysis David M. Cassel Natural Language Processing Villanova University April 21st, 2005 David M. Cassel Natural Language Processing Villanova.
Chapter 4 Syntax.
Unit 6 Predicates, Referring Expressions, and Universe of Discourse Part 1: Practices 1-7.
Statistical NLP: Lecture 3
Processing of large document collections Part 6 (Text summarization: discourse- based approaches) Helena Ahonen-Myka Spring 2006.
1 Discourse, coherence and anaphora resolution Lecture 16.
Discourse Martin Hassel KTH NADA Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm
1/18 Dialogue systems R Mitkov (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics, Oxford (2004): OUP – Chapters 6 ( “ Discourse ” Allan Ramsay), 7.
Anaphora Resolution Spring 2010, UCSC – Adrian Brasoveanu [Slides based on various sources, collected over a couple of years and repeatedly modified –
Chapter 18: Discourse Tianjun Fu Ling538 Presentation Nov 30th, 2006.
Reference Resolution #1 CSCI-GA.2590 Ralph Grishman NYU.
 Christel Kemke 2007/08 COMP 4060 Natural Language Processing Discourse and Dialogue.
Discourse: Reference Ling571 Deep Processing Techniques for NLP March 2, 2011.
CS 4705 Algorithms for Reference Resolution. Anaphora resolution Finding in a text all the referring expressions that have one and the same denotation.
Final Review CS4705 Natural Language Processing. Semantics Meaning Representations –Predicate/argument structure and FOPC Thematic roles and selectional.
CS 4705 Lecture 21 Algorithms for Reference Resolution.
Natural Language Generation Martin Hassel KTH CSC Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm
1 CSC 594 Topics in AI – Applied Natural Language Processing Fall 2009/ Outline of English Syntax.
1 Pragmatics: Discourse Analysis J&M’s Chapter 21.
Pragmatics I: Reference resolution Ling 571 Fei Xia Week 7: 11/8/05.
Reference Resolution CSCI-GA.2590 Ralph Grishman NYU.
A Light-weight Approach to Coreference Resolution for Named Entities in Text Marin Dimitrov Ontotext Lab, Sirma AI Kalina Bontcheva, Hamish Cunningham,
Introduction to English Syntax Level 1 Course Ron Kuzar Department of English Language and Literature University of Haifa Chapter 2 Sentences: From Lexicon.
1 Computational Discourse Chapter 21 November 2012 Lecture #15.
Empirical Methods in Information Extraction Claire Cardie Appeared in AI Magazine, 18:4, Summarized by Seong-Bae Park.
Lecture 12: 22/6/1435 Natural language processing Lecturer/ Kawther Abas 363CS – Artificial Intelligence.
1 Natural Language Processing Computational Discourse.
Fall 2005 Lecture Notes #7 EECS 595 / LING 541 / SI 661 Natural Language Processing.
Lecture 19 From sentence to Text. Sentence and text the sentence: the highest rank of grammatical unit and also the basic linguistic unit constituting.
Differential effects of constraints in the processing of Russian cataphora Kazanina and Phillips 2010.
Binding Theory Describing Relationships between Nouns.
A multiple knowledge source algorithm for anaphora resolution Allaoua Refoufi Computer Science Department University of Setif, Setif 19000, Algeria .
1 CS3730/ISP3120 Discourse Processing and Pragmatics Lecture Notes Jan 10, 12.
Discourse Read J & M Chapter More than One Sentence at a Time The alphas have a long-standing hatred of the betas. Their leaders have decided that.
Natural Language Processing Artificial Intelligence CMSC February 28, 2002.
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 24, April 3, 2007.
Opinion Holders in Opinion Text from Online Newspapers Youngho Kim, Yuchul Jung and Sung-Hyon Myaeng Reporter: Chia-Ying Lee Advisor: Prof. Hsin-Hsi Chen.
Grammatical Cohesion Cohesive relations in and between sentences create texture, which makes a set of sentences a text Cohesive relations in text are constructed.
1 Cohesion + Coherence Lecture 9 MODULE 2 Meaning and discourse in English.
Processing of large document collections Part 6 (Text summarization: discourse- based approaches) Helena Ahonen-Myka Spring 2005.
Reference Resolution. Sue bought a cup of coffee and a donut from Jane. She met John as she left. He looked at her enviously as she drank the coffee.
Linguistic Essentials
1 Natural Language Processing Chapter Outline Reference –Kinds of reference phenomena –Constraints on co-reference –Preferences for co-reference.
Reference Resolution CMSC Discourse and Dialogue September 30, 2004.
Support Vector Machines and Kernel Methods for Co-Reference Resolution 2007 Summer Workshop on Human Language Technology Center for Language and Speech.
SYNTAX.
Reference Resolution CMSC Natural Language Processing January 15, 2008.
Grammatical and lexical coherence in writing group Done by: O`rinboyeva M. Checked by : RasulovaS.
An evolutionary approach for improving the quality of automatic summaries Constantin Orasan Research Group in Computational Linguistics School of Humanities,
Discourse & Natural Language Generation Martin Hassel KTH NADA Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm
Unit 1 Language Parts of Speech. Nouns A noun is a word that names a person, place, thing, or idea Common noun - general name Proper noun – specific name.
Unit 6 Predicates, Referring Expressions, and Universe of Discourse.
Discourse Analysis 11th, 12th Meeting Dra. Sri Mulatsih, M.Pd.
Reference. “John went to the candy store to shop for chocolate.” “He bought some.”
THEMATIC AND INFORMATION STRUCTURES
Discourse Analysis Natural Language Understanding basis
Statistical NLP: Lecture 3
Semantics (Representing Meaning)
Discourse Analysis & Grammar
Referring Expressions: Definition
Lecture 17: Discourse: Anaphora Resolution and Coherence
Anaphora Resolution Spring 2010, UCSC – Adrian Brasoveanu
Algorithms for Reference Resolution
Linguistic Essentials
CS4705 Natural Language Processing
References by: Dania Abbas M. Ali
Presentation transcript:

Coherence and Coreference Introduction to Discourse and Dialogue CS 359 October 2, 2001

Publicly Available Telephone Demos Nuance –Banking: –Travel Planning: –Stock Quotes: SpeechWorks –Banking: –Stock Trading: MIT Spoken Language Systems Laboratory –Travel Plans (Pegasus): –Weather (Jupiter): IBM –Mutual Funds, Name Dialing: VIA-VOICE From Caroenter and Chu-Carroll, Tutorial on Spoken Dialogue Systems, ACL ‘99

Discussion questions What to say/how to say it distinction: Part of determining “how to say it” necessarily depends on “reading” the hearer accurately. To what extent could a computer system gauge the myriad factors - expression, body language, gesture, past utterances - to “read” the hearer? Is it a question of understanding, programming or processing?

Discussion questions How is a set of texts chosen? What makes a text good for this type of analysis? Why recipes? How could a system cope with anaphora when there is insufficient information to resolve it at the time of utterance? How well do systems really do at resolving extended chains of reference? How would these systems deal with the more complex hierarchical, embedded discourse structures that we see in the real world?

Agenda Coherence: Holding discourse together –Coherence types and relations Reference resolution –Syntactic & semantic constraints –Syntactic preferences –A first resolution algorithm

Coherence: Holding Discourse Together Cohesion: –Necessary to make discourse a semantic unit –All utterances linked to some preceding utterance –Expresses continuity –Key: Enables hearers to interpret missing elements, through textual and environmental context links

Cohesive Ties (Halliday & Hasan, 1972) “Reference”: e.g. “he”,”she”,”it”,”that” –Relate utterances by referring to same entities “Substitution”/”Ellipsis”:e.g. Jack fell. Jill did too. –Relate utterances by repeated partial structure w/contrast “Lexical Cohesion”: e.g. fell, fall, fall…,trip.. –Relate utterances by repeated/related words “Conjunction”: e.g. and, or, then –Relate continuous text by logical, semantic, interpersonal relations. Interpretation of 2nd utterance depands on first

Reference Resolution Match referring expressions to referents Syntactic & semantic constraints Syntactic & semantic preferences A 1st resolution algorithm

Reference (terminology) Referring expression: (refexp) –Linguistic form that picks out entity in some model –That entity is the “referent” When introduces entity, “evokes” it Set up later reference, “antecedent” –2 refexps with same referent “co-refer” Anaphor: –Abbreviated linguistic form interpreted in context –Refers to previously introduced item (“accesses”)

Referring Expressions Indefinite noun phrases (NPs): e.g. “a cat” –Introduces new item to discourse context Definite NPs: e.g. “the cat” – Refers to item identifiable by hearer in context By verbal, pointing, or environment availability Pronouns: e.g. “he”,”she”, “it” –Refers to item, must be “salient” Demonstratives: e.g. “this”, “that” –Refers to item, sense of distance (literal/figurative) One-anaphora: “one” –One of a set, possibly generic

Syntactic Constraints Agreement: –Number: Singular/Plural –Person: 1st: I,we; 2nd: you; 3rd: he, she, it, they –Case: we/us; he/him; they/them… –Gender: he vs she vs it

Syntactic & Semantic Constraints Binding constraints: –Reflexive (x-self): corefers with subject of clause –Pronoun/Def. NP: can’t corefer with subject of clause “Selectional restrictions”: –“animate”: The cows eat grass. –“human”: The author wrote the book. –More general: drive: John drives a car….

Syntactic & Semantic Preferences Recency: Closer entities are more salient Grammatical role: Saliency hierarchy of roles –e.g. Subj > Object > I. Obj. > Oblique > AdvP Repeated reference: Pronouns more salient Parallelism: Prefer entity in same role Verb roles: “implicit causality”, thematic role match,...

Reference Resolution Approaches Common features –“Discourse Model” Referents evoked in discourse, available for reference Structure indicating relative salience –Syntactic & Semantic Constraints –Syntactic & Semantic Preferences Differences: –Which constraints/preferences? How combine? Rank?

A Resolution Algorithm Discourse model update: –Evoked entities: Equivalence classes: Coreferent referring expressions –Salience value update: Weighted sum of salience values: –Based on syntactic preferences Pronoun resolution: –Exclude referents that violate syntactic constraints –Select referent with highest salience value

Salience Factors (Lappin & Leass 1994) Weights empirically derived from corpus Recency: 100 Subject: 80 Existential: 70 Object: 50 Indirect Object/Oblique: 40 Non-adverb PP: 50 Head noun: 80 Parallelism: 35, Cataphora: -175 –Divide by 50% for each sentence distance

Example John saw a beautiful Acura Integra in the dealership. He showed it to Bob. He bought it.

Example John saw a beautiful Acura Integra in the dealership. ReferentPhrasesValue John{John} 310 Integra{a beautiful Acura Integra} 280 dealership {the dealership} 230

Example He showed it to Bob. ReferentPhrasesValue John{John, he1} 465 Integra{a beautiful Acura Integra} 140 dealership {the dealership} 115 ReferentPhrasesValue John{John, he1} 465 Integra {a beautiful Acura Integra, it1} 420 dealership {the dealership} 115

Example He showed it to Bob. ReferentPhrasesValue John{John, he1} 465 Integra {a beautiful Acura Integra, it1} 420 Bob{Bob} 270 dealership {the dealership} 115

Example He bought it. ReferentPhrasesValue John{John, he1} Integra {a beautiful Acura Integra, it1} 210 Bob{Bob} 135 dealership {the dealership} 57.5 ReferentPhrasesValue John {John, he1, he2} Integra {a beautiful Acura Integra, it1, it2} 520 Bob{Bob} 135 dealership {the dealership} 57.5

Coherence & Coreference Cohesion: Establishes semantic unity of discourse –Necessary condition –Different types of cohesive forms and relations –Enables interpretation of referring expressions Reference resolution –Syntactic/Semantic Constraints/Preferences –Discourse, Task/Domain, World knowledge Structure and semantic constraints

Challenges Alternative approaches to reference resolution –Different constraints, rankings, combination Different types of referent –Speech acts, propositions, actions, events –“Inferrables” - e.g. car -> door, hood, trunk,.. –Discontinuous sets –Generics –Time