The utility of parse-derived features for automatic discourse segmentation

ACL 2007 - Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 488-495

  Fisher, Seeger ^a   Roark, Brian ^a  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTEXT-FREE; DISCOURSE SEGMENTATION; FEATURE SETS; FINITE-STATE; LEARNING APPROACH;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS;

EID: 84859922535     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. E. Black, S. Abney, D. Flickenger, C. Gdaniec, R. Grishman, P. Harrison, D. Hindle, R. Ingria, F. Jelinek, J. Klavans, M. Liberman, M.P. Marcus, S. Roukos, B. Santorini, and T. Strzalkowski. 1991. A procedure for quantitatively comparing the syntactic coverage of english grammars. In DARPA Speech and Natural Language Workshop, pages 306-311.
2. L. Carlson, D. Marcu, and M.E. Okurowski. 2002. RST discourse treebank. Linguistic Data Consortium, Catalog # LDC2002T07. ISBN LDC2002T07.
3. E. Charniak and M. Johnson. 2005. Coarse-to-fine n-best parsing and MaxEnt discriminative reranking. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of ACL, pages 173-180.
4. E. Charniak. 2000. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 132-139.
5. M.J. Collins. 2002. Discriminative training methods for hidden Markov models: Theory and experiments with perceptron algorithms. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1-8.
6. D. Cristea, O. Postolache, and I. Pistol. 2005. Summarisation through discourse structure. In 6th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (CICLing).
7. K. Hollingshead, S. Fisher, and B. Roark. 2005. Comparing and combining finite-state and context-free parsers. In Proceedings of HLT-EMNLP, pages 787-794.
8. A. Knott. 1996. A Data-Driven Methodology for Motivating a Set of Coherence Relations. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh.
9. W.C. Mann and S.A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243-281.
10. D. Marcu. 1998. Improving summarization through rhetorical parsing tuning. In The 6thWorkshop on Very Large Corpora.
11. D. Marcu. 1999. Discourse trees are good indicators of importance in text. In I. Mani and M. Maybury, editors, Advances in Automatic Text Summarization, pages 123-136. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
12. M.P. Marcus, B. Santorini, and M.A. Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313-330.
13. E. Miltsakaki, R. Prasad, A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2004. The Penn Discourse TreeBank. In Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference.
14. R. Prasad, A. Joshi, N. Dinesh, A. Lee, E. Miltsakaki, and B. Webber. 2005. The Penn Discourse TreeBank as a resource for natural language generation. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Workshop on Using Corpora for Natural Language Generation.
15. R. Soricut and D. Marcu. 2003. Sentence level discourse parsing using syntactic and lexical information. In Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL).
16. C. Sporleder and M. Lapata. 2005. Discourse chunking and its application to sentence compression. In Human Language Technology Conference and the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT-EMNLP), pages 257-264.
17. C. Sporleder and A. Lascarides. 2004. Combining hierarchical clustering and machine learning to predict high-level discourse structure. In Proceedings of the International Conference in Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 43-49.
18. E.F. Tjong Kim Sang and S. Buchholz. 2000. Introduction to the CoNLL-2000 shared task: Chunking. In Proceedings of CoNLL, pages 127-132.
19. S. Verberne, L. Boves, N. Oostdijk, and P.A. Coppen. 2006. Discourse-based answering of why-questions. Traitement Automatique des Langues (TAL)
20. B. Wellner, J. Pustejovsky, C. Havasi, A. Rumshisky, and R. Sauri. 2006. Classification of discourse coherence relations: An exploratory study using multiple knowledge sources. In Proceedings of the 7th SIGdialWorkshop on Discourse and Dialogue.
21. F. Wolf and E. Gibson. 2005. Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based analysis. Computational Linguistics, 31(2):249-288.
22. A. Yeh. 2000. More accurate tests for the statistical significance of result differences. In Proceedings of the 18th International COLING, pages 947-953.