Learning content selection rules for generating object descriptions in dialogue

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Volumn 24, Issue , 2005, Pages 157-194

  Jordan, Pamela W ^a   Walker, Marilyn A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SET THEORY;

CONTENT SELECTION; INCREMENTAL MODEL; RULE-INDUCTION PROGRAM; TASK-ORIENTED DIALOGUE SYSTEM;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 31144453573     PISSN: 10769757     EISSN: 10769757     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1613/jair.1591     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Allen, J., & Core, M. (1997). Draft of DAMSL: Dialog act markup in several layers. Coding scheme developed by the MultiParty group, 1st Discourse Tagging Workshop, University of Pennsylvania, March 1996.
2. Appelt, D. (1985a). Planning English Sentences. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge University Press.
3. Appelt, D. E. (1985b). Some pragmatic issues in the planning of definite and indefinite noun phrases. In Proceedings of 23rd ACL, pp. 198-203.
4. Bangalore, S., & Rainbow, O. (2000). Exploiting a probabilistic hierarchical model for Generation. In COLING, pp. 42-48, Saarbucken, Germany.
5. Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Lexical choice and conceptual pacts in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory And Cognition, 22, 1482-1493.
6. Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1-39.
7. Cohen, W. (1996). Learning trees and rules with set-valued features. In Fourteenth Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 709-716.
8. Daelemans, W., & Hoste, V. (2002). Evaluation of machine learning methods for natural language processing tasks. In Proceedings of LREC-2002, the 3rd International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pp. 755-760.
9. Dale, R. (1992). Generating Referring Expressions. ACL-MIT Series in Natural Language Processing. The MIT Press.
10. Dale, R., & Reiter, E. (1995). Computational Interpretations of the Gricean Maxims in the Generation of Referring Expressions. Cognitive Science, 19(2), 233-263.
11. Di Eugenio, B., Jordan, P. W., Thomason, R. H., & Moore, J. D. (2000). The agreement process: An empirical investigation of human-human computer-mediated collaborative dialogues. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55(6), 1017-1076.
12. Di Eugenio, B., Moore, J. D., & Paolucci, M. (1997). Learning features that predict cue usage. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL/EACL 97, pp. 80-87.
13. Di Eugenio, B., & Webber, B. (1996). Pragmatic overloading in natural language instructions. International Journal of Expert Systems, Special Issue on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning for Natural Language Processing, 9(1), 53-84.
14. Duboue, P. A., & McKeown, K. R. (2001). Empirically estimating order constraints for content planning in generation. In Proceedings of the 39rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL/EACL-2001).
15. Gardent, C. (2002). Generating minimal definite descriptions. In Proceedings of Association for Computational Linguistics 2002, pp. 96-103.
16. Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics III - Speech Acts, pp. 41-58. Academic Press, New York.
17. Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12, 175-204.
18. Heeman, P. A., & Hirst, G. (1995). Collaborating on referring expressions. Computational Linguistics, 21 (3), 351-383.
19. Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In Bauerle, R., Schwarze, C., & von Stechow, A. (Eds.), Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language, pp. 164-189. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
20. Hirschberg, J. B. (1993). Pitch accent in context: predicting intonational prominence from text. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 63, 305-340.
21. Jordan, P., & Walker, M. A. (2000). Learning attribute selections for non-pronominal expressions. In In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-00), Hong Kong, pp. 181-190.
22. Jordan, P. W. (2000a). Influences on attribute selection in redescriptions: A corpus study. In Proceedings of CogSci2000, pp. 250-255.
23. Jordan, P. W. (2000b). Intentional Influences on Object Redescriptions in Dialogue: Evidence from an Empirical Study. Ph.D. thesis, Intelligent Systems Program, University of Pittsburgh.
24. Jordan, P. W. (2002). Contextual influences on attribute selection for repeated descriptions. In van Deemter, K., & Kibble, R. (Eds.), Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation, pp. 295-328. CSLI Publications.
25. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From Discourse to Logic; Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Holland.
26. Karttunen, L. (1976). Discourse referents. In McCawley, J. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 7, pp. 363-385. Academic Press.
27. Krahmer, E., van Erk, S., & Verleg, A. (2003). Graph-Based generation of referring expressions. Computational Linguistics, 29(1), 53-72.
28. Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Ca.
29. Kronfeld, A. (1986). Donnellan's distinction and a computational model of reference. In Proceedings of 24th ACL, pp. 186-191.
30. Langkilde, I., & Knight, K. (1998). Generation that exploits corpus-based statistical knowledge. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL, pp. 704-710.
31. Lochbaum, K. (1995). The use of knowledge preconditions in language processing. In IJCAI95, pp. 1260-1266.
32. Malouf, R. (2000). The order of prenominal adjectives in natural language generation. In Proceedings of the Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingustics, ACL 2000, pp. 85-92.
33. Mellish, C., Knott, A., Oberlander, J., & O'Donnell, M. (1998). Experiments using stochastic search for text planning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Natural Language Generation, pp. 97-108.
34. Oberlander, J. (1998). Do the right thing...but expect the unexpected. Computational Linguistics, 24(3), 501-508.
35. Oh, A. H., & Rudnicky, A. I. (2002). Stochastic natural language generation for spoken dialog systems. Computer Speech and Language: Special Issue on Spoken Language Generation, 16(3-4), 387-407.
36. Passonneau, R. J. (1995). Integrating Gricean and Attentional Constraints. In Proceedings of IJCAI 95, pp. 1267-1273.
37. Passonneau, R. J. (1996). Using Centering to Relax Gricean Informational Constraints on Discourse Anaphoric Noun Phrases. Language and Speech, 32(2,3), 229-264.
38. Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169-226.
39. Poesio, M. (2000). Annotating a corpus to develop and evaluate discourse entity realization algorithms: issues and preliminary results. In Proc. Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, LREC-2000, pp. 211-218.
40. Pollack, M. E. (1991). Overloading intentions for efficient practical reasoning. Noûs, 25, 513-536.
41. Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, pp. 223-255. Academic Press.
42. Radev, D. R. (1998). Learning correlations between linguistic indicators and semantic constraints: Reuse of context-dependent decsriptions of entities. In COLING-ACL, pp. 1072-1078.
43. Ratnaparkhi, A. (2002). Trainable approaches to surface natural language generation and their application to conversational dialog systems. Computer Speech and Language: Special Issue on Spoken Language Generation, 16(3-4), 435-455.
44. Reiter, E. (1990). Generating appropriate natural language object descriptions. Tech. rep. TR-10-90, Department of Computer Science, Harvard University. Dissertation.
45. Reiter, E. (2002). Should corpora be gold standards for NLG?. In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, pp. 97-104.
46. Roy, D. K. (2002). Learning visually grounded words and syntax for a scene description task. Computer Speech and Language: Special Issue on Spoken Language Generation, 16(3-4), 353-385.
47. Stone, M., & Webber, B. (1998). Textual economy through close coupling of syntax and semantics. In Proceedings of 1998 International Workshop on Natural Language Generation, pp. 178-187, Niagra-on-the-Lake, Canada.
48. Terken, J. M. B. (1985). Use and Function of Accentuation: Some Experiments. Ph.D. thesis, Institute for Perception Research, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
49. van Deemter, K. (2002). Generating referring expressions: Boolean extensions of the incremental algorithm. Computational Linguistics, 28(1), 37-52.
50. Varges, S., & Mellish, C. (2001). Instance-based natural language generation. In Proceedings of the North American Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1-8.
51. Walker, M., Rambow, O., & Rogati, M. (2002). Training a sentence planner for spoken dialogue using boosting. Computer Speech and Language: Special Issue on Spoken Language Generation, 16(3-4), 409-433.
52. Walker, M. A. (1996a). Limited attention and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 22-2, 255-264.
53. Walker, M. A. (1996b). The Effect of Resource Limits and Task Complexity on Collaborative Planning in Dialogue. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 85(1-2), 181-243.
54. Webber, B. L. (1978). A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University. New York:Garland Press.
55. Weiss, S. M., & Kulikowski, C. (1991). Computer Systems That Learn: Classification and Prediction Methods from Statistics, Neural Nets, Machine Learning, and Expert Systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
56. Yeh, C.-L., & Mellish, C. (1997). An empirical study on the generation of anaphora in chinese. Computational Linguistics, 23-1, 169-190.