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

2. Publicly Available Telephone Demos Nuance http://www.nuance.com/demo/index.html –Banking: 1-650-847-7438 –Travel Planning: 1-650-847-7427 –Stock Quotes: 1-650-847-7423 SpeechWorks http://www.speechworks.com/demos/demos.htm –Banking: 1-888-729-3366 –Stock Trading: 1-800-786-2571 MIT Spoken Language Systems Laboratory http://www.sls.lcs.mit.edu/sls/whatwedo/applications.html –Travel Plans (Pegasus): 1-877-648-8255 –Weather (Jupiter): 1-888-573-8255 IBM http://www.software.ibm.com/speech/overview/business/demo.html –Mutual Funds, Name Dialing: 1-877-VIA-VOICE From Caroenter and Chu-Carroll, Tutorial on Spoken Dialogue Systems, ACL ‘99

3. 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?

4. 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?

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

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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”)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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….

13. 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,...

14. 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?

15. 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

16. 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

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

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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Example He bought it. ReferentPhrasesValue John{John, he1} 232.5 Integra {a beautiful Acura Integra, it1} 210 Bob{Bob} 135 dealership {the dealership} 57.5 ReferentPhrasesValue John {John, he1, he2} 542.5 Integra {a beautiful Acura Integra, it1, it2} 520 Bob{Bob} 135 dealership {the dealership} 57.5

22. 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

23. 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