Coreference-inspired coherence modeling

ACL-08: HLT - 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 41-44

  Elsner, Micha ^a   Charniak, Eugene ^a  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

CO-REFERENCE RESOLUTIONS; COHERENCE MODELS; COREFERENCE; NOUN PHRASE;

CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION);

EID: 84859881585     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.3115/1557690.1557702     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Regina Barzilay and Mirella Lapata. 2005. Modeling local coherence: an entity-based approach. In ACL 2005.
2. Regina Barzilay and Lillian Lee. 2004. Catching the drift: Probabilistic content models, with applications to generation and summarization. In HLT-NAACL 2004, pages 113-120.
3. Regina Barzilay, Noemie Elhadad, and Kathleen McKeown. 2002. Inferring strategies for sentence ordering in multidocument news summarization. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Results (JAIR), 17:35-55.
4. David L. Bean and Ellen Riloff. 1999. Corpus-based identification of non-anaphoric noun phrases. In ACL'99, pages 373-380.
5. Erdong Chen, Benjamin Snyder, and Regina Barzilay. 2007. Incremental text structuring with online hierarchical ranking. In Proceedings of EMNLP.
6. Hal Daumé III. 2004. Notes on CG and LM-BFGS optimization of logistic regression. Paper available at http://pub.hal3.name#daume04cg-bfgs, implementation available at http://hal3.name/megam/, August.
7. Peter Foltz, Walter Kintsch, and Thomas Landauer. 1998. The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2&3):285-307.
8. Kari Fraurud. 1990. Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics, 7(4):395-433.
9. Niyu Ge, John Hale, and Eugene Charniak. 1998. A statistical approach to anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Very Large Corpora, pages 161-171.
10. Barbara J. Grosz, Aravind K. Joshi, and Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21(2):203-225.
11. John A. Hawkins. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: a study in reference and grammaticality prediction. Croom Helm Ltd.
12. Jerry R. Hobbs. 1976. Pronoun resolution. Technical Report 76-1, City College New York.
13. Mirella Lapata and Regina Barzilay. 2005. Automatic evaluation of text coherence: Models and representations. In IJCAI, pages 1085-1090.
14. Mirella Lapata. 2006. Automatic evaluation of information ordering: Kendall's tau. Computational Linguistics, 32(4):1-14.
15. E. Miltsakaki and K. Kukich. 2004. Evaluation of text coherence for electronic essay scoring systems. Nat. Lang. Eng., 10(1):25-55.
16. Ani Nenkova and Kathleen McKeown. 2003. References to named entities: a corpus study. In NAACL'03, pages 70-72.
17. Vincent Ng and Claire Cardie. 2002. Identifying anaphoric and non-anaphoric noun phrases to improve coreference resolution. In COLING.
18. Massimo Poesio and Renata Vieira. 1998. A corpusbased investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics, 24(2):183-216.
19. Massimo Poesio, Mijail Alexandrov-Kabadjov, Renata Vieira, Rodrigo Goulart, and Olga Uryupina. 2005. Does discourse-new detection help definite description resolution? In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computational Semantics, Tillburg.
20. Ellen Prince. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole, editor, Radical Pragmatics, pages 223-255. Academic Press, New York.
21. Radu Soricut and Daniel Marcu. 2006. Discourse generation using utility-trained coherence models. In ACL-2006.
22. Olga Uryupina. 2003. High-precision identification of discourse new and unique noun phrases. In Proceedings of the ACL Student Workshop, Sapporo.
23. Renata Vieira and Massimo Poesio. 2000. An empirically-based system for processing definite descriptions. Computational Linguistics, 26(4):539- 593.