Predicting the fluency of text with shallow structural features: Case studies of machine translation and human-written text

EACL 2009 - 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 139-147

  Chae, Jieun ^a   Nenkova, Ani ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUENCY ASSESSMENTS; MACHINE TRANSLATIONS; MULTI-LAYER PERCEPTRON CLASSIFIERS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PAIR-WISE COMPARISON; PREDICTION ACCURACY; PREDICTIVE POWER; STRUCTURAL FEATURE;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

COMPUTER AIDED LANGUAGE TRANSLATION;

EID: 78650443649     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. A. Bailin and A. Grafstein. 2001. The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique. Language and Communication, 21: 285-301.
2. S. Bangalore and O. Rambow. 2000. Exploiting a probabilistic hierarchical model for generation. In COLING, pages 42-48.
3. S. Bangalore, O. Rambow, and S. Whittaker. 2000. Evaluation metrics for generation. In INLG'00: Proceedings of the first international conference on Natural language generation, pages 1-8.
4. M. Banko, V. Mittal, and M. Witbrock. 2000. Headline generation based on statistical translation. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Co mputational Linguistics.
5. R. Barzilay and M. Lapata. 2008. Modeling local coherence: An entity-based approach. Computational Linguistics, 34(1): 1-34.
6. R. Barzilay and K. McKeown. 2005. Sentence fusion for multidocument news summarization. Computational Linguistics, 31(3).
7. E. Charniak and M. Johnson. 2005. Coarse-to-fine n-best parsing and maxent discriminative reranking. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL'05), pages 173-180.
8. Eugene Charniak. 2000. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In NAACL-2000.
9. J. Clarke and M. Lapata. 2006. Models for sentence compression: A comparison across domains, training requirements and evaluation measures. In ACL: COLING'06, pages 377-384.
10. M. Collins and T. Koo. 2005. Discriminative reranking for natural language parsing. Comput. Linguist., 31(1): 25-70.
11. K. Collins-Thompson and J. Callan. 2004. A language modeling approach to predicting reading difficulty. In Proceedings of HLT/NAACL'04.
12. S. Corston-Oliver, M. Gamon, and C. Brockett. 2001. A machine learning approach to the automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 148-155.
13. H. Daumé III and D. Marcu. 2004. Generic sentence fusion is an ill-defined summarization task. In Proceedings of the Text Summarization Branches Out Workshop at ACL.
14. M. Galley and K. McKeown. 2007. Lexlcalized markov grammars for sentence compression. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL-HLT).
15. Liang Huang. 2008. Forest reranking: Discriminative parsing with non-local features. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages 586-594.
16. H. Jing. 2000. Sentence simplification in automatic text summarization. In Proceedings of the 6th Applied NLP Conference, ANLP'2000.
17. N. Karamanis, M. Poesio, C. Mellish, and J. Oberländer, (to appear). Evaluating centering for information ordering using corpora. Computational Linguistics.
18. K. Knight and D. Marcu. 2002. Summarization beyond sentence extraction: A probabilistic approach to sentence compression. Artificial Intelligence, 139(1).
19. I. Langkilde and K. Knight. 1998. Generation that exploits corpus-based statistical knowledge. In COLING-ACL, pages 704-710.
20. Mirella Lapata. 2003. Probabilistic text structuring: Experiments with sentence ordering. In Proceedings of ACL'03.
21. R. McDonald. 2006. Discriminative sentence compression with soft syntactic evidence. In EACL'06.
22. A. Mutton, M. Dras, S. Wan, and R. Dale. 2007. Gleu: Automatic evaluation of sentence-level fluency. In ACL'07, pages 344-351.
23. K. Papineni, S. Roukos, T. Ward, and W. Zhu. 2002. BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of ACL.
24. E. Pitler and A. Nenkova. 2008. Revisiting readability: A unified framework for predicting text quality. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 186-195.
25. S. Schwann and M. Ostendorf. 2005. Reading level assessment using support vector machines and statistical language models. In Proceedings of ACL'05, pages 523-530.
26. A. Siddharthan. 2003. Syntactic simplification and Text Cohesion. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.
27. R. Soricut and D. Marcu. 2007. Abstractive headline generation using widl-expressions. Inf. Process. Manage., 43(6): 1536-1548.
28. J. Turner and E. Charniak. 2005. Supervised and unsupervised learning for sentence compression. In ACL'05.
29. S. Wan, R. Dale, and M. Dras. 2005. Searching for grammaticality: Propagating dependencies in the viterbi algorithm. In Proceedings of the Tenth European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG-05).
30. D. Zajic, B. Dorr, J. Lin, and R. Schwartz. 2007. Multi-candidate reduction: Sentence compression as a tool for document summarization tasks. Inf. Process. Manage., 43(6): 1549-1570.
31. S. Zwarts and M. Dras. 2008. Choosing the right translation: A syntactically informed classification approach. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008), pages 1153-1160.