Rhetorical relations for information retrieval

SIGIR'12 - Proceedings of the International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 931-940

  Lioma, Christina ^a   Larsen, Birger ^b   Lu, Wei ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b ROYAL SCHOOL OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE   (Denmark)

^c WUHAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

discourse structure; probabilistic retrieval model; rhetorical relations

Indexed keywords

DISCOURSE STRUCTURE; EMPIRICAL EVALUATIONS; LANGUAGE MODEL; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PROBABILISTIC RETRIEVAL; RETRIEVAL EFFECTIVENESS; RETRIEVAL PERFORMANCE; RHETORICAL RELATIONS; WORK STUDY;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; SEMANTICS;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

EID: 84866598102     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2348283.2348407     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2011, 27-31 July 2011, John McIntyre Conference Centre, Edinburgh, UK, A meeting of SIGDAT, a Special Interest Group of the ACL. ACL, 2011.
2. A. Azevedo-Filho and R. D. Shachter. Laplace's method approximations for probabilistic inference in belief networks with continuous variables. In R. L. de Mántaras and D. Poole, editors, UAI, pages 28-36. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.
3. M. Bendersky, W. B. Croft, and Y. Diao. Quality-biased ranking of web documents. In I. King, W. Nejdl, and H. Li, editors, WSDM, pages 95-104. ACM, 2011.
4. C. Buckley and E. M. Voorhees. Retrieval evaluation with incomplete information. In M. Sanderson, K. Järvelin, J. Allan, and P. Bruza, editors, SIGIR, pages 25-32. ACM, 2004.
5. L. Carlson, D. Marcu, and M. E. Okurowski. Building a discourse-tagged corpus in the framework of rhetorical structure theory. In Current Directions in Discourse and Dialogue, pages 85-112. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.
6. E. Charniak. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proceedings of the first conference on North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 132-139, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
7. J. Clarke and M. Lapata. Discourse constraints for document compression. Computational Linguistics, 36(3):411-441, 2010.
8. G. V. Cormack, M. D. Smucker, and C. L. A. Clarke. Efficient and effective spam filtering and re-ranking for large web datasets. CoRR, abs/1004.5168, 2010.
9. W. B. Croft and J. Lafferty. Language Modeling for Information Retrieval. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA, 2003.
10. A. C. Davison. Statistical Models. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009.
11. D. A. duVerle and H. Prendinger. A novel discourse parser based on support vector machine classification. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP: Volume 2 - Volume 2, ACL '09, pages 665-673, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2009. Association for Computational Linguistics.
12. C. J. Fillmore, C. F. Baker, and S. Hiroaki. The framenet database and software tools. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), pages 1157-1160, 2002.
13. W. A. Gale and G. Sampson. Good-turing frequency estimation without tears. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 2(3):217-237, 1995.
14. S. Ghosh, R. Johansson, G. Riccardi, and S. Tonelli. Shallow discourse parsing with conditional random fields. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP), pages 1071-1079, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 2011.
15. D. Gildea and D. Jurafsky. Automatic labeling of semantic roles. In ACL. ACL, 2000.
16. B. Heerschop, F. Goossen, A. Hogenboom, F. Frasincar, U. Kaymak, and F. de Jong. Polarity analysis of texts using discourse structure. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management, CIKM '11, pages 1061-1070, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM.
17. K. Järvelin and J. Kekäläinen. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of ir techniques. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 20(4):422-446, 2002.
18. P. Kingsbury and M. Palmer. From treebank to propbank. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), pages x-x, 2002.
19. E. Krikon and O. Kurland. A study of the integration of passage-, document-, and cluster-based information for re-ranking search results. Inf. Retr., 14(6):593-616, 2011.
20. M. Lalmas. XML Retrieval. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2009.
21. A. Louis, A. K. Joshi, and A. Nenkova. Discourse indicators for content selection in summarization. In R. Fernández, Y. Katagiri, K. Komatani, O. Lemon, and M. Nakano, editors, SIGDIAL Conference, pages 147-156. The Association for Computer Linguistics, 2010.
22. R. Manmatha, T. M. Rath, and F. Feng. Modeling score distributions for combining the outputs of search engines. In W. B. Croft, D. J. Harper, D. H. Kraft, and J. Zobel, editors, SIGIR, pages 267-275. ACM, 2001.
23. W. C. Mann and S. A. Thompson. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8:243-281, 1988.
24. J. Morato, J. Llorens, G. Genova, and J. A. Moreiro. Experiments in discourse analysis impact on information classification and retrieval algorithms. Inf. Process. Manage., 39:825-851, November 2003.
25. M. D. Smucker, J. Allan, and B. Carterette. Agreement among statistical significance tests for information retrieval evaluation at varying sample sizes. In J. Allan, J. A. Aslam, M. Sanderson, C. Zhai, and J. Zobel, editors, SIGIR, pages 630-631. ACM, 2009.
26. S. Somasundaran, G. Namata, J. Wiebe, and L. Getoor. Supervised and unsupervised methods in employing discourse relations for improving opinion polarity classification. In EMNLP, pages 170-179. ACL, 2009.
27. R. Soricut and D. Marcu. Sentence level discourse parsing using syntactic and lexical information. In HLT-NAACL, 2003.
28. M. Sun and J. Y. Chai. Discourse processing for context question answering based on linguistic knowledge. Know.-Based Syst., 20:511-526, August 2007.
29. N. Suwandaratna and U. Perera. Discourse marker based topic identification and search results refining. In Information and Automation for Sustainability (ICIAFs), 2010 5th International Conference on, pages 119-125, 2010.
30. S. Teufel and M. Moens. Summarizing scientific articles: Experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Computational Linguistics, 28(4):409-445, 2002.
31. D. Y. Wang, R. W. P. Luk, K.-F. Wong, and K. L. Kwok. An information retrieval approach based on discourse type. In C. Kop, G. Fliedl, H. C. Mayr, and E. Métais, editors, NLDB, volume 3999 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 197-202. Springer, 2006.
32. J. Wang and J. Zhu. On statistical analysis and optimization of information retrieval effectiveness metrics. In F. Crestani, S. Marchand-Maillet, H.-H. Chen, E. N. Efthimiadis, and J. Savoy, editors, SIGIR, pages 226-233. ACM, 2010.
33. L.Wang, M. Lui, S. N. Kim, J. Nivre, and T. Baldwin. Predicting thread discourse structure over technical web forums. In EMNLP [1], pages 13-25.
34. L.-C. Yu, C.-H. Wu, and F.-L. Jang. Psychiatric document retrieval using a discourse-aware model. Artif. Intell., 173:817-829, May 2009.
35. C. Zhai and J. D. Lafferty. Two-stage language models for information retrieval. In SIGIR, pages 49-56. ACM, 2002.
36. L. Zhou, B. Li, W. Gao, Z. Wei, and K.-F. Wong. Unsupervised discovery of discourse relations for eliminating intra-sentence polarity ambiguities. In EMNLP [1], pages 162-171.