Cited By
View all- Li JSong YWei ZWong K(2018)A joint model of conversational discourse and latent topics on microblogsComputational Linguistics10.1162/coli_a_0033544:4(719-754)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018
A novel discriminative framework for sentence-level discourse analysis
Abstract
We propose a complete probabilistic discriminative framework for performing sentence-level discourse analysis. Our framework comprises a discourse segmenter, based on a binary classifier, and a discourse parser, which applies an optimal CKY-like parsing algorithm to probabilities inferred from a Dynamic Conditional Random Field. We show on two corpora that our approach outperforms the state-of-the-art, often by a wide margin.
References
[1]
Or Biran and Owen Rambow. 2011. Identifying Justifications in Written Dialogs by Classifying Text as Argumentative. Int. J. Semantic Computing, 5(4): 363--381.
[2]
J. Blitzer, 2008. Domain Adaptation of Natural Language Processing Systems. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
[3]
L. Breiman. 1996. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning, 24(2): 123--140, August.
[4]
L. Carlson and D. Marcu. 2001. Discourse Tagging Reference Manual. Technical Report ISI-TR-545, University of Southern California Information Sciences Institute.
[5]
L. Carlson, D. Marcu, and M. Okurowski. 2002. RST Discourse Treebank (RST-DT) LDC2002T07. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia.
[6]
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, pages 173--180, NJ, USA. ACL.
[7]
E. Charniak. 2000. A Maximum-Entropy-Inspired Parser. In Proceedings of the 1st North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Conference, pages 132--139, Seattle, Washington. ACL.
[8]
M. Collins. 2003. Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. Computational Linguistics, 29(4): 589--637, December.
[9]
H. Daume. 2007. Frustratingly Easy Domain Adaptation. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 256--263, Prague, Czech Republic. ACL.
[10]
D. duVerle and H. Prendinger. 2009. 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, pages 665--673, Suntec, Singapore. ACL.
[11]
J. Finkel, A. Kleeman, and C. Manning. 2008. Efficient, Feature-based, Conditional Random Field Parsing. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 959--967, Columbus, Ohio, USA. ACL.
[12]
S. Fisher and B. Roark. 2007. The Utility of Parse-derived Features for Automatic Discourse Segmentation. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 488--495, Prague, Czech Republic. ACL.
[13]
S. Ghosh, R. Johansson, G. Riccardi, and S. Tonelli. 2011. Shallow Discourse Parsing with Conditional Random Fields. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 1071--1079, Chiang Mai, Thailand. AFNLP.
[14]
H. Hernault, H. Prendinger, D. duVerle, and M. Ishizuka. 2010. HILDA: A Discourse Parser Using Support Vector Machine Classification. Dialogue and Discourse, 1(3): 1--33.
[15]
D. Jurafsky and J. Martin, 2008. Speech and Language Processing, chapter 14. Prentice Hall.
[16]
A. Knott and R. Dale. 1994. Using Linguistic Phenomena to Motivate a Set of Coherence Relations. Discourse Processes, 18(1): 35--62.
[17]
J. Lafferty, A. McCallum, and F. Pereira. 2001. Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 282--289, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
[18]
D. Magerman. 1995. Statistical Decision-tree Models for Parsing. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 276--283, Cambridge, Massachusetts. ACL.
[19]
W. Mann and S. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization. Text, 8(3): 243--281.
[20]
D. Marcu. 2000a. The Rhetorical Parsing of Unrestricted Texts: A Surface-based Approach. Computational Linguistics, 26: 395--448.
[21]
D. Marcu. 2000b. The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
[22]
M. Marcus, B. Santorini, and M. Marcinkiewicz. 1994. Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2): 313--330.
[23]
A. McCallum. 2002. MALLET: A Machine Learning for Language Toolkit. http://mallet.cs.umass.edu.
[24]
K. Murphy. 2012. Machine Learning A Probabilistic Perspective (Forthcoming, August 2012). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
[25]
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, pages 25--32, Birmingham, U.K.
[26]
R. Prasad, N. Dinesh, A. Lee, E. Miltsakaki, L. Robaldo, A. Joshi, and B. Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), pages 2961--2968, Marrakech, Morocco. ELRA.
[27]
F. Schilder. 2002. Robust Discourse Parsing via Discourse Markers, Topicality and Position. Natural Language Engineering, 8(3): 235--255, June.
[28]
F. Sha and F. Pereira. 2003. Shallow Parsing with Conditional Random Fields. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology - Volume 1, pages 134--141, Edmonton, Canada. ACL.
[29]
S. Somasundaran, 2010. Discourse-Level Relations for Opinion Analysis. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh.
[30]
R. Soricut and D. Marcu. 2003. Sentence Level Discourse Parsing Using Syntactic and Lexical Information. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology - Volume 1, pages 149--156, Edmonton, Canada. ACL.
[31]
C. Sporleder and M. Lapata. 2005. Discourse Chunking and its Application to Sentence Compression. In Proceedings of the conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 257--264, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. ACL.
[32]
M. Stede. 2011. Discourse Processing. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies. Morgan And Claypool Publishers, November.
[33]
R. Subba and B. Di Eugenio. 2009. An Effective Discourse Parser that Uses Rich Linguistic Information. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 566--574, Boulder, Colorado. ACL.
[34]
C. Sutton, A. McCallum, and K. Rohanimanesh. 2007. Dynamic Conditional Random Fields: Factorized Probabilistic Models for Labeling and Segmenting Sequence Data. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), 8: 693--723.
[35]
S. Verberne, L. Boves, N. Oostdijk, and P. Coppen. 2007. Evaluating Discourse-based Answer Extraction for Why-question Answering. In Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 735--736, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ACM.
[36]
M. Wainwright, T. Jaakkola, and A. Willsky. 2002. Tree-based Reparameterization for Approximate Inference on Loopy Graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14, pages 1001--1008. MIT Press.
[37]
F. Wolf and E. Gibson. 2005. Representing Discourse Coherence: A Corpus-Based Study. Computational Linguistics, 31: 249--288, June.
Recommendations
Sentence level discourse parsing using syntactic and lexical information
NAACL '03: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology - Volume 1We introduce two probabilistic models that can be used to identify elementary discourse units and build sentence-level discourse parse trees. The models use syntactic and lexical features. A discourse parsing algorithm that implements these models ...
A Novel Sentence-Level Agreement Architecture for Neural Machine Translation
In neural machine translation (NMT), there is a natural correspondence between source and target sentences. The traditional NMT method does not explicitly model the translation agreement on sentence-level. In this article, we propose a comprehensive and ...
Sentential structure and discourse parsing
DiscAnnotation '04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse AnnotationIn this paper, we describe how the LIDAS System (Linguistic Discourse Analysis System), a discourse parser built as an implementation of the Unified Linguistic Discourse Model (U-LDM) uses information from sentential syntax and semantics along with ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Publisher
Association for Computational Linguistics
United States
Publication History
Published: 12 July 2012
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 73 of 234 submissions, 31%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 269Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)23
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
Reflects downloads up to 22 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Li JSong YWei ZWong K(2018)A joint model of conversational discourse and latent topics on microblogsComputational Linguistics10.1162/coli_a_0033544:4(719-754)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in