File size: 87,835 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 | {
"paper_id": "D08-1019",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T16:31:04.838975Z"
},
"title": "Sentence Fusion via Dependency Graph Compression",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Katja",
"middle": [],
"last": "Filippova",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "EML Research gGmbH Schloss",
"location": {
"addrLine": "Wolfsbrunnenweg 33",
"postCode": "69118",
"settlement": "Heidelberg",
"country": "Germany"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Strube",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "EML Research gGmbH Schloss",
"location": {
"addrLine": "Wolfsbrunnenweg 33",
"postCode": "69118",
"settlement": "Heidelberg",
"country": "Germany"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We present a novel unsupervised sentence fusion method which we apply to a corpus of biographies in German. Given a group of related sentences, we align their dependency trees and build a dependency graph. Using integer linear programming we compress this graph to a new tree, which we then linearize. We use GermaNet and Wikipedia for checking semantic compatibility of co-arguments. In an evaluation with human judges our method outperforms the fusion approach of Barzilay & McKeown (2005) with respect to readability.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "D08-1019",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We present a novel unsupervised sentence fusion method which we apply to a corpus of biographies in German. Given a group of related sentences, we align their dependency trees and build a dependency graph. Using integer linear programming we compress this graph to a new tree, which we then linearize. We use GermaNet and Wikipedia for checking semantic compatibility of co-arguments. In an evaluation with human judges our method outperforms the fusion approach of Barzilay & McKeown (2005) with respect to readability.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Automatic text summarization is a rapidly developing field in computational linguistics. Summarization systems can be classified as either extractive or abstractive ones (Sp\u00e4rck Jones, 1999) . To date, most systems are extractive: sentences are selected from one or several documents and then ordered. This method exhibits problems, because input sentences very often overlap and complement each other at the same time. As a result there is a trade-off between non-redundancy and completeness of the output. Although the need for abstractive approaches has been recognized before (e.g. McKeown et al. (1999) ), so far almost all attempts to get closer to abstractive summarization using scalable, statistical techniques have been limited to sentence compression.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 190,
"text": "(Sp\u00e4rck Jones, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 586,
"end": 607,
"text": "McKeown et al. (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The main reason why there is little progress on abstractive summarization is that this task seems to require a conceptual representation of the text which is not yet available (see e.g. Hovy (2003, p.589) ). Sentence fusion (Barzilay & McKeown, 2005) , where a new sentence is generated from a group of related sentences and where complete semantic and conceptual representation is not required, can be seen as a middle-ground between extractive and abstractive summarization. Our work regards a corpus of biographies in German where multiple documents about the same person should be merged into a single one. An example of a fused sentence (3) with the source sentences (1,2) is given below: Having both (1) and (2) in a summary would make it redundant. Selecting only one of them would not give all the information from the input. (3), fused from both (1) and (2), conveys the necessary information without being redundant and is more appropriate for a summary.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 186,
"end": 204,
"text": "Hovy (2003, p.589)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 250,
"text": "(Barzilay & McKeown, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "To this end, we present a novel sentence fusion method based on dependency structure alignment and semantically and syntactically informed phrase aggregation and pruning. We address the problem in an unsupervised manner and use integer linear programming (ILP) to find a globally optimal solution. We argue that our method has three important advantages compared to existing methods. First, we address the grammaticality issue empirically by means of knowledge obtained from an automatically parsed corpus. We do not require such resources as subcategorization lexicons or hand-crafted rules, but decide to retain a dependency based on its syntactic importance score. The second point concerns integrating semantics. Being definitely important, \"this source of information remains relatively unused in work on aggregation 1 within NLG\" (Reiter & Dale, 2000, p.141) . To our knowledge, in the text-to-text generation field, we are the first to use semantic information not only for alignment but also for aggregation in that we check coarguments' compatibility. Apart from that, our method is not limited to sentence fusion and can be easily applied to sentence compression. In Filippova & Strube (2008) we compress English sentences with the same approach and achieve state-of-the-art performance.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 836,
"end": 864,
"text": "(Reiter & Dale, 2000, p.141)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1177,
"end": 1202,
"text": "Filippova & Strube (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 gives an overview of related work and Section 3 presents our data. Section 4 introduces our method and Section 5 describes the experiments and discusses the results of the evaluation. The conclusions follow in the final section.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Most studies on text-to-text generation concern sentence compression where the input consists of exactly one sentence (Jing, 2001; Hori & Furui, 2004; Clarke & Lapata, 2008, inter alia) . In such setting, redundancy, incompleteness and compatibility issues do not arise. Apart from that, there is no obvious way of how existing sentence compression methods can be adapted to sentence fusion. Barzilay & McKeown (2005) present a sentence fusion method for multi-document news summarization which crucially relies on the assumption that information appearing in many sources is important. Consequently, their method produces an intersection of input sentences by, first, finding the centroid of the input, second, augmenting it with information from other sentences and, finally, pruning a predefined set of constituents (e.g. PPs). The resulting structure is not necessarily a tree and allows for extraction of several trees, each of which can be linearized in many ways. Marsi & Krahmer (2005) extend the approach of Barzilay & McKeown to do not only intersection but also union fusion. Like Barzilay & McKeown (2005) , they find the best linearization with a language model which, as they point out, often produces inadequate rankings being unable to deal with word order, agreement and subcategorization constraints. In our work we aim at producing a valid dependency tree structure so that most grammaticality issues are resolved before the linearization stage. Wan et al. (2007) introduce a global revision method of how a novel sentence can be generated from a set of input words. They formulate the problem as a search for a maximum spanning tree which is incrementally constructed by connecting words or phrases with dependency relations. The grammaticality issue is addressed by a number of hard constraints. As Wan et al. point out, one of the problems with their method is that the output built up from dependencies found in a corpus might have a meaning different from the intended one. Since we build our trees from the input dependencies, this problem does not arise with our method. Apart from that, in our opinion, the optimization formulation we adopt is more appropriate as it allows to integrate many constraints without complex rescoring rules.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 130,
"text": "(Jing, 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 150,
"text": "Hori & Furui, 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 185,
"text": "Clarke & Lapata, 2008, inter alia)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 417,
"text": "Barzilay & McKeown (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 971,
"end": 993,
"text": "Marsi & Krahmer (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 1092,
"end": 1117,
"text": "Barzilay & McKeown (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 1465,
"end": 1482,
"text": "Wan et al. (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The comparable corpus we work with is a collection of about 400 biographies in German gathered from the Internet 2 . These biographies describe 140 different people, and the number of articles for one person ranges from 2 to 4, being 3 on average. Despite obvious similarities between articles about one person, neither identical content nor identical ordering of information can be expected.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Fully automatic preprocessing in our system comprises the following steps: sentence boundaries are identified with a Perl CPAN module 3 . Then the sentences are split into tokens and the TnT tagger (Brants, 2000) and the TreeTagger (Schmid, 1997) are used for tagging and lemmatization respectively. Finally, the biographies are parsed with the CDG dependency parser (Foth & Menzel, 2006) . We also identify references to the biographee (pronominal as well as proper names) and temporal expressions (absolute and relative) with a few rules.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 198,
"end": 212,
"text": "(Brants, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 246,
"text": "(Schmid, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 388,
"text": "(Foth & Menzel, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Groups of related sentences serve as input to a sentence fusion system and thus need to be identified first (4.1). Then the dependency trees of the sentences are modified (4.2) and aligned (4.3). Syntactic importance (4.4) and word informativeness (4.5) scores are used to extract a new dependency tree from a graph of aligned trees (4.6). Finally, the tree is linearized (4.7).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Our Method",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Sentence alignment for comparable corpora requires methods different from those used in machine translation for parallel corpora. For example, given two biographies of a person, one of them may follow the timeline from birth to death whereas the other may group events thematically or tell only about the scientific contribution of the person. Thus one cannot assume that the sentence order or the content is the same in two biographies. Shallow methods like word or bigram overlap, (weighted) cosine or Jaccard similarity are appealing as they are cheap and robust. In particular, Nelken & Schieber (2006) demonstrate the efficacy of a sentence-based tf*idf score when applied to comparable corpora. Following them, we define the similarity of two sentences sim(s 1 , s 2 ) as",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 582,
"end": 606,
"text": "Nelken & Schieber (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentence Alignment",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "S 1 \u2022 S 2 |S 1 | \u2022 |S 2 | = t w S 1 (t) \u2022 w S 2 (t) t w 2 S 1 (t) t w 2 S 2 (t)",
"eq_num": "(1)"
}
],
"section": "Sentence Alignment",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "where S is the set of all lemmas but stop-words from s, and w S (t) is the weight of the term t:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentence Alignment",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "w S (t) = S(t) 1 N t (2)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentence Alignment",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "where S(t) is the indicator function of S, N t is the number of sentences in the biographies of one person which contain t. We enhance the similarity measure by looking up synonymy in GermaNet (Lemnitzer & Kunze, 2002) . We discard identical or nearly identical sentences (sim(s 1 , s 2 ) > 0.8) and greedily build sentence clusters using a hierarchical groupwiseaverage technique. As a result, one sentence may belong to one cluster at most. These sentence clusters serve as input to the fusion algorithm.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 193,
"end": 218,
"text": "(Lemnitzer & Kunze, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentence Alignment",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "We apply a set of transformations to a dependency tree to emphasize its important properties and eliminate unimportant ones. These transformations are necessary for the compression stage. An example of a dependency tree and its modifed version are given in Fig. 1 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 257,
"end": 263,
"text": "Fig. 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dependency Tree Modification",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "PREP preposition nodes (an, in) are removed and placed as labels on the edges to the respective nouns;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dependency Tree Modification",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "CONJ a chain of conjuncts (Mathematik und Physik) is split and each node is attached to the parent node (studierte) provided they are not verbs;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dependency Tree Modification",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "APP a chain of words analyzed as appositions by CDG (Niels Bohr) is collapsed into one node;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dependency Tree Modification",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "FUNC function words like determiners (der), auxiliary verbs or negative particles are removed from the tree and memorized with their lexical heads (memorizing negative particles preserves negation in the output); ROOT every dependency tree gets an explicit root which is connected to every verb node;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dependency Tree Modification",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "BIO all occurrences of the biographee (Niels Bohr) are replaced with the bio tag.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dependency Tree Modification",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Once we have a group of two to four strongly related sentences and their transformed dependency trees, we aim at finding the best node alignment. We use a simple, fast and transparent method and align any two words provided that they 1. are content words;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Node Alignment",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "2. have the same part-of-speech;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Node Alignment",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "3. have identical lemmas or are synonyms.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Node Alignment",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "In case of multiple possibilities, which are extremely rare in our data, the choice is made randomly. By merging all aligned nodes we get a dependency graph which consists of all dependencies from the input trees. In case it contains a cycle, one of the alignments from the cycle is eliminated. We prefer this very simple method to bottom-up ones (Barzilay & McKeown, 2005; Marsi & Krahmer, 2005) for two main reasons. Pursuing local subtree alignments, bottom-up methods may leave identical words unaligned and thus prohibit fusion of complementary information. On the other hand, they may force alignment of two unrelated words if the subtrees they root are largely aligned. Although in some cases it helps discover paraphrases, it considerably increases chances of generating ungrammatical output which we want to avoid at any cost.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 347,
"end": 373,
"text": "(Barzilay & McKeown, 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 396,
"text": "Marsi & Krahmer, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Node Alignment",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Given a dependency graph we want to get a new dependency tree from it. Intuitively, we want to retain obligatory dependencies (e.g. subject) while removing less important ones (e.g. adv). When deciding on pruning an argument, previous approaches either used a set of hand-crafted rules (e.g. Barzilay & McKeown (2005) ), or utilized a subcategorization lexicon (e.g. Jing (2001) ). The hand-crafted rules are often too general to ensure a grammatical argument structure for different verbs (e.g. PPs can be pruned). Subcategorization lexicons are not readily available for many languages and cover only verbs. E.g. they do not tell that the noun son is very often modified by a PP using the preposition of, as in the son of Niels Bohr, and that the NP without a PP modifier may appear incomplete.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 292,
"end": 317,
"text": "Barzilay & McKeown (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 378,
"text": "Jing (2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Syntactic Importance Score",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "To overcome these problems, we decide on pruning an edge by estimating the conditional probability of its label given its head, P (l|h) 4 . For example, P (subj|studieren) -the probability of the label subject given the verb study -is higher than P (in|studieren), and therefore the subject will be preserved whereas the prepositional label and thus the whole PP can be pruned, if needed. Table 1 presents the probabilities of several labels given that the head is studieren and shows that some prepositions are more important than other ones. Note that if we did not apply the PREP modification we would be unable to distinguish between different prepositions and could only calculate P (pp|studieren) which would not be very informative. subj obja in an nach mit zu 0.88 0.74 0.44 0.42 0.09 0.02 0.01 Table 1 : Probabilities of subj, obja(ccusative), in, at, after, with, to given the verb studieren (study)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 389,
"end": 396,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 803,
"end": 810,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Syntactic Importance Score",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "We also want to retain informative words in the output tree. There are many ways in which word importance can be defined. Here, we use a formula introduced by Clarke & Lapata (2008) which is a modification of the significance score of Hori & Furui (2004) :",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 181,
"text": "Clarke & Lapata (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 254,
"text": "Hori & Furui (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word Informativeness Score",
"sec_num": "4.5"
},
{
"text": "I(w i ) = l N \u2022 f i log F A F i (3)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word Informativeness Score",
"sec_num": "4.5"
},
{
"text": "w i is the topic word (either noun or verb), f i is the frequency of w i in the aligned biographies, F i is the frequency of w i in the corpus, and F A is the sum of frequencies of all topic words in the corpus. l is the number of clause nodes above w and N is the maximum level of embedding of the sentence which w belongs to. By defining word importance differently, e.g. as relatedness of a word to the topic, we could apply our method to topic-based summarization (Krahmer et al., 2008) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 468,
"end": 490,
"text": "(Krahmer et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word Informativeness Score",
"sec_num": "4.5"
},
{
"text": "We formulate the task of getting a tree from a dependency graph as an optimization problem and solve it with ILP 5 . In order to decide which edges of the graph to remove, for each directed dependency edge from head h to word w we introduce a binary variable x l h,w , where l stands for the label of the edge:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "x l h,w = 1 if the dependency is preserved 0 otherwise",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "The goal is to find a subtree of the graph which gets the highest score of the objective function (5) to which both the probability of dependencies (P (l|h) ) and the importance of dependent words (I(w)) contribute: 5 We use lp solve in our implementation http:// sourceforge.net/projects/lpsolve.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 216,
"end": 217,
"text": "5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "f (X) = x x l h,w \u2022 P (l|h) \u2022 I(w)",
"eq_num": "(5)"
}
],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "The objective function is subject to four types of constraints presented below (W stands for the set of graph nodes minus root, i.e. the set of words).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "STRUCTURAL constraints allow to get a tree from the graph: (6) ensures that each word has one head at most. 7ensures connectivity in the tree. (8) is optional and restricts the size of the resulting tree to \u03b1 words (\u03b1 = min(0.6 \u2022 |W |, 10)).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "\u2200w \u2208 W, h,l x l h,w \u2264 1 (6) \u2200w \u2208 W, h,l x l h,w \u2212 1 |W | u,l x l w,u \u2265 0 (7) x x l h,w \u2264 \u03b1",
"eq_num": "(8)"
}
],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "SYNTACTIC constraints ensure the syntactic validity of the output tree and explicitly state which arguments should be preserved. We have only one syntactic constraint which guarantees that a subordinating conjunction (sc) is preserved (9) if and only if the clause it belongs to serves as a subordinate clause (sub) in the output.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "\u2200x sc w,u , h,l x sub h,w \u2212 x sc w,u = 0",
"eq_num": "(9)"
}
],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "SEMANTIC constraints restrict coordination to semantically compatible elements. The idea behind these constraints is the following (see Fig. 2 ). It can be that one sentence says He studied math and another one He studied physics, so the output may unite the two words under coordination: He studied math and physics. But if the input sentences are He studied physics and He studied sciences, then one should not unite both, because sciences is the generalization of physics. Neither should one unite two unrelated words: He studied with pleasure and He studied with Bohr cannot be fused into He studied with pleasure and Bohr.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 142,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "To formalize these intuitions we define two functions hm (w,u) and rel (w,u) : hm(w,u) is a binary function, whereas rel(w,u) returns a value from [0, 1]. We also introduce additional variables y l w,u (represented by dashed lines in Fig. 2) :",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 62,
"text": "(w,u)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 76,
"text": "(w,u)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 234,
"end": 241,
"text": "Fig. 2)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "y l w,u = 1 if \u2203h, l : x l h,w = 1 \u2227 x l h,u = 1 0 otherwise (10)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "For two edges sharing a head and having identical labels to be retained we check in GermaNet and in the taxonomy derived from Wikipedia (Kassner et al., 2008) that their dependents are not in the hyponymy or meronymy relation (11). We prohibit verb coordination unless it is found in one of the input sentences. If the dependents are nouns, we also check that their semantic relatedness as measured with WikiRelate! (Strube & Ponzetto, 2006) is above a certain threshold (12). We empirically determined the value of \u03b2 = 0.36 by calculating an average similarity of coordinated nouns in the corpus. (14) ) guarantee that y l w,u = x l h,w \u00d7 x l h,u i.e. they ensure that the semantic constraints are applied only if both the labels from h to w and from h to u are preserved.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 158,
"text": "(Kassner et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 441,
"text": "(Strube & Ponzetto, 2006)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 598,
"end": 602,
"text": "(14)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "\u2200y l w,u , hm(w, u) \u2022 y l w,u = 0 (11) \u2200y l w,u , (rel(w, u) \u2212 \u03b2) \u2022 y l w,u \u2265 0",
"eq_num": "(12)"
}
],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "\u2200y l w,u , x l h,w + x l h,u \u2265 2y l w,u (13) \u2200y l w,u , 1 \u2212 x l h,w + 1 \u2212 x l h,u \u2265 1 \u2212 y l w,u",
"eq_num": "(14)"
}
],
"section": "New Sentence Generation",
"sec_num": "4.6"
},
{
"text": "The \"overgenerate-and-rank\" approach to statistical surface realization is very common (Langkilde & Knight, 1998) . Unfortunately, in its simplest and most popular version, it ignores syntactical constraints and may produce ungrammatical output. For example, an inviolable rule of German grammar states that the finite verb must be in the second position in the main clause. Since it is hard to enforce such rules with an ngram language model, syntax-informed linearization methods have been developed for German (Ringger et al., 2004; Filippova & Strube, 2007) . We apply our recent method to order constituents and, using the CMU toolkit (Clarkson & Rosenfeld, 1997) , build a trigram language model from Wikipedia (approx. 1GB plain text) to find the best word order within constituents. Some constraints on word order are inferred from the input. Only interclause punctuation is generated.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 113,
"text": "(Langkilde & Knight, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 513,
"end": 535,
"text": "(Ringger et al., 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 536,
"end": 561,
"text": "Filippova & Strube, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 640,
"end": 668,
"text": "(Clarkson & Rosenfeld, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Linearization",
"sec_num": "4.7"
},
{
"text": "We choose Barzilay & McKeown's system as a nontrivial baseline since, to our knowledge, there is no other system which outperforms theirs (Sec. 5.1). It is important for us to evaluate the fusion part of our system, so the input and the linearization module of our method and the baseline are identical. We are also interested in how many errors are due to the linearization module and thus define the readability upper bound (Sec. 5.2). We further present and discuss the experiments (Sec. 5.3 and 5.5).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments and Evaluation",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "The algorithm of Barzilay & McKeown (2005) proceeds as follows: Given a group of related sentences, a dependency tree is built for each sentence. These trees are modified so that grammatical features are eliminated from the representation and memorized; noun phrases are flattened to facilitate alignment. A locally optimal pairwise alignment of modified dependency trees is recursively found with Word-Net and a paraphrase lexicon. From the alignment costs the centroid of the group is identified. Then this tree is augmented with information from other trees given that it appears in at least half of the sentences from this group. A rule-based pruning module prunes optional constituents, such as PPs or relative clauses. The linearization of the resulting tree (or graph) is done with a trigram language model. To adapt this system to German, we use the Ger-maNet API (Gurevych & Niederlich, 2005) instead of WordNet. We do not use a paraphrase lexicon, because there is no comparable corpus of sufficient size available for German. We readjust the alignment parameters of the system to prevent dissimilar nodes from being aligned. The input to the algorithm is generated as described in Sec. 4.1. The linearization is done as described in Sec. 4.7. In cases when there is a graph to linearize, all possible trees covering the maximum number of nodes are extracted from it and linearized. The most probable string is selected as the final output with a language model. For the rest of the reimplementation we follow the algorithm as presented.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 42,
"text": "Barzilay & McKeown (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 872,
"end": 901,
"text": "(Gurevych & Niederlich, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Baseline",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "To find the upper bound on readability, we select one sentence from the input randomly, parse it and linearize the dependency tree as described in Sec. 4.7. This way we obtain a sentence which may differ in form from the input sentences but whose content is identical to one of them.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Readability Upper Bound",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "It is notoriously difficult to evaluate generation and summarization systems as there are many dimensions in which the quality of the output can be assessed. The goal of our present evaluation is in the first place to check whether our method is able to produce sensible output.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "We evaluated the three systems (GRAPH-COMPRESSION, BARZILAY & MCKEOWN and READABILITY UB) with 50 native German speakers on 120 fused sentences generated from 40 randomly drawn related sentences groups (3 \u00d7 40). In an online experiment, the participants were asked to read a fused sentence preceded by the input and to rate its readability (read) and informativity in respect to the input (inf ) on a five point scale. The experiment was designed so that every participant rated 40 sentences in total. No participant saw two sentences generated from the same input. The results are presented in Table 2 . len is an average length in words of the output.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 595,
"end": 602,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "READABILITY UB 4.0 3.5 12.9 BARZILAY & MCKEOWN 3.1 3.0 15.5 GRAPH-COMPRESSION 3.7 3.1 13.0 ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "read inf len",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The main disadvantage of our method, as well as other methods designed to work on syntactic structures, is that it requires a very accurate parser. In some cases, errors in the preprocessing made extracting a valid dependency tree impossible. The poor rating of READABILITY UB also shows that errors of the parser and of the linearization module affect the output considerably.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Error Analysis",
"sec_num": "5.4"
},
{
"text": "Although the semantic constraints ruled out many anomalous combinations, the limited coverage of GermaNet and the taxonomy derived from Wikipedia was the reason for some semantic oddities in the sentences generated by our method. For example, it generated phrases like aus England und Gro\u00dfbritannien (from England and Great Britain). A larger taxonomy would presumably increase the recall of the semantic constraints which proved helpful. Such errors were not observed in the output of the baseline because it does not fuse within NPs.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Error Analysis",
"sec_num": "5.4"
},
{
"text": "Both the baseline and our method made subcategorization errors, although these are more common for the baseline which aligns not only synonyms but also verbs which share some arguments. Also, the baseline pruned some PPs necessary for a sentence to be complete. For example, it pruned an der Atombombe (on the atom bomb) and generated an incomplete sentence Er arbeitete (He worked). For the baseline, alignment of flattened NPs instead of words caused generating very wordy and redundant sentences when the input parse trees were incorrect. In other cases, our method made mistakes in linearizing constituents because it had to rely on a language model whereas the baseline used unmodified constituents from the input. Absense of intraclause commas caused a drop in readability in some otherwise grammatical sentences.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Error Analysis",
"sec_num": "5.4"
},
{
"text": "A paired t-test revealed significant differences between the readability ratings of the three systems (p = 0.01) but found no significant differences between the informativity scores of our system and the baseline. Some participants reported informativity hard to estimate and to be assessable for grammatical sentences only. The higher readability rating of our method supports our claim that the method based on syntactic importance score and global constraints generates more grammatical sentences than existing systems. An important advantage of our method is that it addresses the subcategorization issue directly without shifting the burden of selecting the right arguments to the linearization module. The dependency structure it outputs is a tree and not a graph as it may happen with the method of Barzilay & McKeown (2005) . Moreover, our method can distinguish between more and less obligatory arguments. For example, it knows that at is more important than to for study whereas for go it is the other way round. Unlike our differentiated approach, the baseline rule states that PPs can generally be pruned.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 807,
"end": 832,
"text": "Barzilay & McKeown (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "5.5"
},
{
"text": "Since the baseline generates a new sentence by modifying the tree of an input sentence, in some cases it outputs a compression of this sentence. Unlike this, our method is not based on an input tree and generates a new sentence without being biased to any of the input sentences.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "5.5"
},
{
"text": "Our method can also be applied to non-trivial sentence compression, whereas the baseline and similar methods, such as Marsi & Krahmer (2005) , would then boil down to a few very general pruning rules. We tested our method on the English compression corpus 6 and evaluated the compressions automatically the same way as Clarke & Lapata (2008) did. The results (Filippova & Strube, 2008) were as good as or significantly better than the state-of-the-art, depending on the choice of dependency parser.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 140,
"text": "Marsi & Krahmer (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 341,
"text": "Clarke & Lapata (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 385,
"text": "(Filippova & Strube, 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "5.5"
},
{
"text": "We presented a novel sentence fusion method which formulates the fusion task as an optimization problem. It is unsupervised and finds a globally optimal solution taking semantics, syntax and word informativeness into account. The method does not require hand-crafted rules or lexicons to generate grammatical output but relies on the syntactic importance score calculated from an automatically parsed corpus. An experiment with native speakers demonstrated that our method generates more grammatical sentences than existing systems.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "There are several directions to explore in the future. Recently query-based sentence fusion has been shown to be a better defined task than generic sentence fusion (Krahmer et al., 2008) . By modifying the word informativeness score, e.g. by giving higher scores to words semantically related to the query, one could force our system to retain words relevant to the query in the output. To generate coherent texts we plan to move beyond sentence generation and add discourse constraints to our system.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 186,
"text": "(Krahmer et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "We followBarzilay & McKeown (2005) and refer to aggregation within text-to-text generation as sentence fusion.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "http://de.wikipedia.org, http://home. datacomm.ch/biografien, http://biographie. net/de, http://www.weltchronik.de/ws/bio/ main.htm, http://www.brockhaus-suche.de/ suche 3 http://search.cpan.org/ \u223c holsten/ Lingua-DE-Sentence-0.07/Sentence.pm",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The probabilities are calculated from a corpus of approx. 3,000 biographies from Wikipedia which we annotated automatically as described in Section 3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The corpus is available from http://homepages. inf.ed.ac.uk/s0460084/data.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "Acknowledgements: This work has been funded by the Klaus Tschira Foundation, Heidelberg, Germany. The first author has been supported by a KTF grant (09.009.2004). Part of the data has been used with a permission of Bibliographisches Institut & F. A. Brockhaus AG, Mannheim, Germany. We would like to thank the participants in our online evaluation. We are also grateful to Regina Barzilay and the three reviewers for their helpful comments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "acknowledgement",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Sentence fusion for multidocument news summarization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Regina",
"middle": [
"&"
],
"last": "Barzilay",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kathleen",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "31",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "297--327",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Barzilay, Regina & Kathleen R. McKeown (2005). Sen- tence fusion for multidocument news summarization. Computational Linguistics, 31(3):297-327.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "TnT -A statistical Part-of-Speech tagger",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Thorsten",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brants",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "224--231",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brants, Thorsten (2000). TnT -A statistical Part-of- Speech tagger. In Proceedings of the 6th Confer- ence on Applied Natural Language Processing, Seat- tle, Wash., 29 April -4 May 2000, pp. 224-231.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Global inference for sentence compression: An integer linear programming approach",
"authors": [
{
"first": "James & Mirella",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clarke",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lapata",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research",
"volume": "31",
"issue": "",
"pages": "399--429",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Clarke, James & Mirella Lapata (2008). Global inference for sentence compression: An integer linear program- ming approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Re- search, 31:399-429.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Statistical language modeling using the CMU-Cambridge toolkit",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Philip & Ronald",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clarkson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rosenfeld",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Clarkson, Philip & Ronald Rosenfeld (1997). Statis- tical language modeling using the CMU-Cambridge toolkit. In Proceedings of the 5th European Con- ference on Speech Communication and Technology,",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Generating constituent order in German clauses",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Katja & Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Filippova",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Strube",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "320--327",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Filippova, Katja & Michael Strube (2007). Generating constituent order in German clauses. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, 23-30 June 2007, pp. 320-327.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Dependency tree based sentence compression",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Katja & Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Filippova",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Strube",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Natural Language Generation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "25--32",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Filippova, Katja & Michael Strube (2008). Dependency tree based sentence compression. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, Salt Fork, Ohio, 12-14 June 2008, pp. 25- 32.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Hybrid parsing: Using probabilistic models as predictors for a symbolic parser",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kilian & Wolfgang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Foth",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Menzel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "321--327",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Foth, Kilian & Wolfgang Menzel (2006). Hybrid pars- ing: Using probabilistic models as predictors for a symbolic parser. In Proceedings of the 21st Interna- tional Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, Sydney, Australia, 17-21 July 2006, pp. 321-327.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Accessing GermaNet data and computing semantic relatedness",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Iryna & Hendrik",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gurevych",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niederlich",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Companion Volume to the Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "5--8",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gurevych, Iryna & Hendrik Niederlich (2005). Access- ing GermaNet data and computing semantic related- ness. In Companion Volume to the Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, Ann Arbor, Mich., 25-30 June 2005, pp. 5-8.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Speech summarization: An approach through word extraction and a method for evaluation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Chiori & Sadaoki",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hori",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Furui",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "IEEE Transactions on Information and Systems",
"volume": "",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "15--25",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hori, Chiori & Sadaoki Furui (2004). Speech summa- rization: An approach through word extraction and a method for evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation and Systems, E87-D(1):15-25.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Eduard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hovy",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "583--598",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hovy, Eduard (2003). Text summarization. In Ruslan Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics, pp. 583-598. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Uni- versity Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Cut-and-Paste Text Summarization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hongyan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jing",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jing, Hongyan (2001). Cut-and-Paste Text Summariza- tion, (Ph.D. thesis). Computer Science Department, Columbia University, New York, N.Y.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Acquiring a taxonomy from the German Wikipedia",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Laura",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kassner",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Vivi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nastase & Michael",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Strube",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kassner, Laura, Vivi Nastase & Michael Strube (2008). Acquiring a taxonomy from the German Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Marrakech, Mo- rocco, 26 May -1 June 2008.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Query-based sentence fusion is better defined and leads to more preferred results than generic sentence fusion",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Emiel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krahmer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Erwin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marsi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "&",
"middle": [],
"last": "Paul Van Pelt",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Companion Volume to the Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "193--196",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Krahmer, Emiel, Erwin Marsi & Paul van Pelt (2008). Query-based sentence fusion is better defined and leads to more preferred results than generic sentence fusion. In Companion Volume to the Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, Columbus, Ohio, 15-20 June 2008, pp. 193-196.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Generation that exploits corpus-based statistical knowledge",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Irene & Kevin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Langkilde",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Knight",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "704--710",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Langkilde, Irene & Kevin Knight (1998). Generation that exploits corpus-based statistical knowledge. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 36th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Montr\u00e9al, Qu\u00e9bec, Canada, 10-14 August 1998, pp. 704-710.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "GermaNet -representation, visualization, application",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lothar & Claudia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lemnitzer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kunze",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1485--1491",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lemnitzer, Lothar & Claudia Kunze (2002). GermaNet -representation, visualization, application. In Pro- ceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Lan- guage Resources and Evaluation, Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain, 29-31 May 2002, pp. 1485-1491.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Explorations in sentence fusion",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Erwin & Emiel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marsi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krahmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the European Workshop on Natural Language Generation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "109--117",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marsi, Erwin & Emiel Krahmer (2005). Explorations in sentence fusion. In Proceedings of the European Work- shop on Natural Language Generation, Aberdeen, Scotland, 8-10 August, 2005, pp. 109-117.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Towards multidocument summarization by reformulation: Progress and prospects",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kathleen",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Judith",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Klavans",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Vassileios",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hatzivassiloglou",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "453--460",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "McKeown, Kathleen R., Judith L. Klavans, Vassileios Hatzivassiloglou, Regina Barzilay & Eleazar Eskin (1999). Towards multidocument summarization by re- formulation: Progress and prospects. In Proceedings of the 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, Orlando, Flo., 18-22 July 1999, pp. 453-460.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Towards robust context-sensitive sentence alignment for monolingual corpora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rani & Stuart",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nelken",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schieber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "161--168",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nelken, Rani & Stuart Schieber (2006). Towards robust context-sensitive sentence alignment for monolingual corpora. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, Trento, Italy, 3-7 April 2006, pp. 161-168.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Building Natural Language Generation Systems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ehud & Robert",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reiter",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dale",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Reiter, Ehud & Robert Dale (2000). Building Natu- ral Language Generation Systems. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Linguistically informed statistical models of constituent structure for ordering in sentence realization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Eric",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ringger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gamon",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Moore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rojas",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martine",
"middle": [],
"last": "Smets & Simon Corston-Oliver",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "673--679",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ringger, Eric, Michael Gamon, Robert C. Moore, David Rojas, Martine Smets & Simon Corston-Oliver (2004). Linguistically informed statistical models of con- stituent structure for ordering in sentence realization. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Geneva, Switzerland, 23-27 August 2004, pp. 673-679.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Probabilistic Part-of-Speech tagging using decision trees",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Helmut",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schmid",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "New Methods in Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "154--164",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Schmid, Helmut (1997). Probabilistic Part-of-Speech tagging using decision trees. In Daniel Jones & Harold Somers (Eds.), New Methods in Language Processing, pp. 154-164. London, U.K.: UCL Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Automatic summarizing: Factors and directions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sp\u00e4rck",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jones",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Karen",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Advances in Automatic Text Summarization",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--12",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sp\u00e4rck Jones, Karen (1999). Automatic summarizing: Factors and directions. In Inderjeet Mani & Mark T. Maybury (Eds.), Advances in Automatic Text Summa- rization, pp. 1-12. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "WikiRelate! Computing semantic relatedness using Wikipedia",
"authors": [],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1419--1424",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "WikiRelate! Computing semantic relatedness using Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 21st National Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, Mass., 16- 20 July 2006, pp. 1419-1424.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Global revision in summarization: Generating novel sentences with Prim's algorithm",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Wan",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "226--235",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wan, Stephen, Robert Dale, Mark Dras & Cecile Paris (2007). Global revision in summarization: Generating novel sentences with Prim's algorithm. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics, Melbourne, Australia, 19- 21 September, 2007, pp. 226-235.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "After school Bohr studied physics and mathematics at the University of Copenhagen and got his PhD there'",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "The dependency tree of the sentence Bohr studierte Mathematik und Physik an der Uni in Kopenhagen (Bohr studied mathematics and physics at university in Copenhagen) as produced by the parser (a) and after all transformations applied (b)",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Graph obtained from sentences He studied sciences with pleasure and He studied math and physics with Bohr",
"num": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"text": "Average readability and informativity on a five point scale, average length in words",
"html": null
}
}
}
} |