File size: 59,534 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 | {
"paper_id": "P01-1014",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:29:28.271961Z"
},
"title": "Towards Automatic Classification of Discourse Elements in Essays",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jill",
"middle": [],
"last": "Burstein",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "ETS Technologies",
"location": {
"postCode": "MS 18E, 08541",
"settlement": "Princeton",
"region": "NJ"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marcu",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "ISI/USC",
"location": {
"addrLine": "4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey",
"region": "CA",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "marcu@isi.edu"
},
{
"first": "Slava",
"middle": [],
"last": "Andreyev",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "ETS Technologies",
"location": {
"addrLine": "MS 18E",
"postCode": "08541",
"settlement": "Princeton",
"region": "NJ",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Martin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chodorow",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "The City University of New York",
"location": {
"settlement": "New York",
"region": "NY",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "martin.chodorow@hunter.cuny.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Educators are interested in essay evaluation systems that include feedback about writing features that can facilitate the essay revision process. For instance, if the thesis statement of a student's essay could be automatically identified, the student could then use this information to reflect on the thesis statement with regard to its quality, and its relationship to other discourse elements in the essay. Using a relatively small corpus of manually annotated data, we use Bayesian classification to identify thesis statements. This method yields results that are much closer to human performance than the results produced by two baseline systems. 1 A thesis statement is generally defined as the sentence that explicitly identifies the purpose of the paper or previews its main ideas. See the Literacy Education On-line (LEO) site at http://leo.stcloudstate.edu.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P01-1014",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Educators are interested in essay evaluation systems that include feedback about writing features that can facilitate the essay revision process. For instance, if the thesis statement of a student's essay could be automatically identified, the student could then use this information to reflect on the thesis statement with regard to its quality, and its relationship to other discourse elements in the essay. Using a relatively small corpus of manually annotated data, we use Bayesian classification to identify thesis statements. This method yields results that are much closer to human performance than the results produced by two baseline systems. 1 A thesis statement is generally defined as the sentence that explicitly identifies the purpose of the paper or previews its main ideas. See the Literacy Education On-line (LEO) site at http://leo.stcloudstate.edu.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Automated essay scoring technology can achieve agreement with a single human judge that is comparable to agreement between two single human judges (Burstein, et al 1998; Foltz, et al 1998; Larkey, 1998; and Page and Peterson, 1995) . Unfortunately, providing students with just a score (grade) is insufficient for instruction. To help students improve their writing skills, writing evaluation systems need to provide feedback that is specific to each individual's writing and that is applicable to essay revision.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 169,
"text": "(Burstein, et al 1998;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 188,
"text": "Foltz, et al 1998;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 202,
"text": "Larkey, 1998;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 231,
"text": "and Page and Peterson, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The factors that contribute to improvement of student writing include refined sentence structure, variety of appropriate word usage, and organizational structure. The improvement of organizational structure is believed to be critical in the essay revision process toward overall improvement of essay quality. Therefore, it would be desirable to have a system that could indicate as feedback to students, the discourse elements in their essays. Such a system could present to students a guided list of questions to consider about the quality of the discourse. For instance, it has been suggested by writing experts that if the thesis statement 1 of a student's essay could be automatically provided, the student could then use this information to reflect on the thesis statement and its quality. In addition, such an instructional application could utilize the thesis statement to discuss other types of discourse elements in the essay, such as the relationship between the thesis statement and the conclusion, and the connection between the thesis statement and the main points in the essay. In the teaching of writing, in order to facilitate the revision process, students are often presented with 'Revision Checklists.' A revision checklist is a list of questions posed to the student to help the student reflect on the quality of his or her writing. Such a list might pose questions such as: a) Is the intention of my thesis statement clear?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(Annotator 2) I think doing what students want is good for them. I sure they want to achieve in the highest place but most of the student give up. They they don't get what they want. To get what they want, they have to be so strong and take the lesson from their parents Even take a risk, go to the library, and study hard by doing different thing.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(Annotator 1) \"In my opinion student should do what they want to do because they feel everything and they can't have anythig they feel because they probably feel to do just because other people do it not they want it.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Some student they do not get what they want because of their family. Their family might be careless about their children so this kind of student who does not get support, loving from their family might not get what he wants. He just going to do what he feels right away.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(Annotator 1) \"In my opinion student should do what they want to do because they feel everything and they can't have anythig they feel because they probably feel to do just because other people do it not they want it.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "So student need a support from their family they has to learn from them and from their background. I learn from my background I will be the first generation who is going to gradguate from university that is what I want.\" to my original thesis statement? If these questions are expressed in general terms, they are of little help; to be useful, they need to be grounded and need to refer explicitly to the essays students write (Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1985; White 1994) . The ability to automatically identify and present to students the discourse elements in their essays can help them focus and reflect on the critical discourse structure of the essays. In addition, the ability for the application to indicate to the student that a discourse element could not be located, perhaps due to the 'lack of clarity' of this element, could also be helpful. Assuming that such a capability was reliable, this would force the writer to think about the clarity of an intended discourse element, such as a thesis statement.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 427,
"end": 459,
"text": "(Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1985;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 460,
"end": 471,
"text": "White 1994)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(Annotator 1) \"In my opinion student should do what they want to do because they feel everything and they can't have anythig they feel because they probably feel to do just because other people do it not they want it.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Using a relatively small corpus of essay data where thesis statements have been manually annotated, we built a Bayesian classifier using the following features: sentence position; words commonly used in thesis statements; and discourse features, based on Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) parses (Mann and Thompson, 1988 and Marcu, 2000) . Our results indicate that this classification technique may be used toward automatic identification of thesis statements in essays. Furthermore, we show that this method generalizes across essay topics.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 296,
"end": 305,
"text": "(Mann and",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 324,
"text": "Thompson, 1988 and",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 337,
"text": "Marcu, 2000)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "(Annotator 1) \"In my opinion student should do what they want to do because they feel everything and they can't have anythig they feel because they probably feel to do just because other people do it not they want it.",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A thesis statement is defined as the sentence that explicitly identifies the purpose of the paper or previews its main ideas (see footnote 1). This definition seems straightforward enough, and would lead one to believe that even for people to identify the thesis statement in an essay would be clear-cut. However, the essay in Figure 1 is a common example of the kind of first-draft writing that our system has to handle. Figure 1 shows a student response to the essay question:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 327,
"end": 335,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 422,
"end": 430,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "What Are Thesis Statements?",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Often in life we experience a conflict in choosing between something we \"want\" to do and something we feel we \"should\" do. In your opinion, are there any circumstances in which it is better for people to do what they \"want\" to do rather than what they feel they \"should\" do? Support your position with evidence from your own experience or your observations of other people. The writing in Figure 1 illustrates one kind of challenge in automatic identification of discourse elements, such as thesis statements. In this case, the two human annotators independently chose different text as the thesis statement (the two texts highlighted in bold and italics in Figure 1 ). In this kind of first-draft writing, it is not uncommon for writers to repeat ideas, or express more than one general opinion about the topic, resulting in text that seems to contain multiple thesis statements.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 389,
"end": 397,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 658,
"end": 666,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "What Are Thesis Statements?",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Before building a system that automatically identifies thesis statements in essays, we wanted to determine whether the task was well-defined. In collaboration with two writing experts, a simple discourse-based annotation protocol was developed to manually annotate discourse elements in essays for a single essay topic. This was the initial attempt to annotate essay data using discourse elements generally associated with essay structure, such as thesis statement, concluding statement, and topic sentences of the essay's main ideas. The writing experts defined the characteristics of the discourse labels. These experts then annotated 100 essay responses to one English Proficiency Test (EPT) question, called Topic B, using a PC-based interface implemented in Java.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "What Are Thesis Statements?",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We computed the agreement between the two human annotators using the kappa coefficient (Siegel and Castellan, 1988) , a statistic used extensively in previous empirical studies of discourse. The kappa statistic measures pairwise agreement among a set of coders who make categorial judgments, correcting for chance expected agreement. The kappa agreement between the two annotators with respect to the thesis statement labels was 0.733 (N=2391, where 2391 represents the total number of sentences across all annotated essay responses). This shows high agreement based on research in content analysis (Krippendorff, 1980) that suggests that values of kappa higher than 0.8 reflect very high agreement and values higher than 0.6 reflect good agreement. The corresponding z statistic was 27.1, which reflects a confidence level that is much higher than 0.01, for which the corresponding z value is 2.32 (Siegel and Castellan, 1988) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 115,
"text": "(Siegel and Castellan, 1988)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 599,
"end": 619,
"text": "(Krippendorff, 1980)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 899,
"end": 927,
"text": "(Siegel and Castellan, 1988)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "What Are Thesis Statements?",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In the early stages of our project, it was suggested to us that thesis statements reflect the most important sentences in essays. In terms of summarization, these sentences would represent indicative, generic summaries (Mani and Maybury, 1999; Marcu, 2000) . To test this hypothesis (and estimate the adequacy of using summarization technology for identifying thesis statements), we carried out an additional experiment. The same annotation tool was used with two different human judges, who were asked this time to identify the most important sentence of each essay. The agreement between human judges on the task of identifying summary sentences was significantly lower: the kappa was 0.603 (N=2391). Tables 1a and 1b summarize the results of the annotation experiments. Table 1a shows the degree of agreement between human judges on the task of identifying thesis statements and generic summary sentences. The agreement figures are given using the kappa statistic and the relative precision (P), recall (R), and F-values (F), which reflect the ability of one judge to identify the sentences labeled as thesis statements or summary sentences by the other judge. The results in Table 1a show that the task of thesis statement identification is much better defined than the task of identifying important summary sentences. In addition, Table 1b indicates that there is very little overlap between thesis and generic summary sentences: just 6% of the summary sentences were labeled by human judges as thesis statement sentences. This strongly suggests that there are critical differences between thesis statements and summary sentences, at least in first-draft essay writing. It is possible that thesis statements reflect an intentional facet (Grosz and Sidner, 1986) of language, while summary sentences reflect a semantic one (Martin, 1992) . More detailed experiments need to be carried out though before proper conclusions can be derived. Table 1a provide an estimate for an upper bound of a thesis statement identification algorithm. If one can build an automatic classifier that identifies thesis statements at recall and precision levels as high as 70%, the performance of such a classifier will be indistinguishable from the performance of humans.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 219,
"end": 243,
"text": "(Mani and Maybury, 1999;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 256,
"text": "Marcu, 2000)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1744,
"end": 1768,
"text": "(Grosz and Sidner, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 1829,
"end": 1843,
"text": "(Martin, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 703,
"end": 783,
"text": "Tables 1a and 1b summarize the results of the annotation experiments. Table 1a",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
},
{
"start": 1181,
"end": 1189,
"text": "Table 1a",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
},
{
"start": 1338,
"end": 1346,
"text": "Table 1b",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 1944,
"end": 1952,
"text": "Table 1a",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "What Are Thesis Statements?",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We initially built a Bayesian classifier for thesis statements using essay responses to one English Proficiency Test (EPT) test question: Topic B.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Description of the Approach",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "McCallum and Nigam (1998) discuss two probabilistic models for text classification that can be used to train Bayesian independence classifiers. They describe the multinominal model as being the more traditional approach for statistical language modeling (especially in speech recognition applications), where a document is represented by a set of word occurrences, and where probability estimates reflect the number of word occurrences in a document. In using the alternative, multivariate Bernoulli model, a document is represented by both the absence and presence of features. On a text classification task, McCallum and Nigam (1998) show that the multivariate Bernoulli model performs well with small vocabularies, as opposed to the multinominal model which performs better when larger vocabularies are involved. Larkey (1998) uses the multivariate Bernoulli approach for an essay scoring task, and her results are consistent with the results of McCallum and Nigam (1998) (see also Larkey and Croft (1996) for descriptions of additional applications). In Larkey (1998) , sets of essays used for training scoring models typically contain fewer than 300 documents. Furthermore, the vocabulary used across these documents tends to be restricted.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 610,
"end": 635,
"text": "McCallum and Nigam (1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 816,
"end": 829,
"text": "Larkey (1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 985,
"end": 1008,
"text": "Larkey and Croft (1996)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1058,
"end": 1071,
"text": "Larkey (1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Description of the Approach",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Based on the success of Larkey's experiments, and McCallum and Nigam's findings that the multivariate Bernoulli model performs better on texts with small vocabularies, this approach would seem to be the likely choice when dealing with data sets of essay responses. Therefore, we have adopted this approach in order to build a thesis statement classifier that can select from an essay the sentence that is the most likely candidate to be labeled as thesis statement. 2 In our experiments, we used three general feature types to build the classifier: sentence position; words commonly occurring in thesis statements; and RST labels from outputs generated by an existing rhetorical structure parser (Marcu, 2000) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 466,
"end": 467,
"text": "2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 696,
"end": 709,
"text": "(Marcu, 2000)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Description of the Approach",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "We trained the classifier to predict thesis statements in an essay. Using the multivariate Bernoulli formula, below, this gives us the log probability that a sentence (S) in an essay belongs to the class (T) of sentences that are thesis statements. We found that it helped performance to use a Laplace estimator to deal with cases where the probability estimates were equal to zero. In this formula, P(T) is the prior probability that a sentence is in class T, P(A i |T) is the conditional probability of a sentence having feature A i , given that the sentence is in T, and P(A i ) is the prior probability that a sentence contains feature A i , P( i A |T) is the conditional probability that a sentence does not have feature A i , given that it is in T, and P( i A ) is the prior probability that a sentence does not contain feature A i.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Description of the Approach",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "We found that the likelihood of a thesis statement occurring at the beginning of essays was quite high in the human annotated data. To account for this, we used one feature that reflected the position of each sentence in an essay.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Positional Feature",
"sec_num": "3.2.1"
},
{
"text": "classifier. In the classical Bayes implementation, each classifier was trained only on positive feature evidence, in contrast to the multivariate Bernoulli approach that trains classifiers both on the absence and presence of features. Since the performance of the classical Bayes classifiers was lower than the performance of the Bernoulli classifier, we report here only the performance of the latter.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Positional Feature",
"sec_num": "3.2.1"
},
{
"text": "All words from human annotated thesis statements were used to build the Bayesian classifier. We will refer to these words as the thesis word list. From the training data, a vocabulary list was created that included one occurrence of each word used in all resolved human annotations of thesis statements. All words in this list were used as independent lexical features. We found that the use of various lists of stop words decreased the performance of our classifier, so we did not use them.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Lexical Features",
"sec_num": "3.2.2"
},
{
"text": "According to RST (Mann and Thompson, 1988) , one can associate a rhetorical structure tree to any text. The leaves of the tree correspond to elementary discourse units and the internal nodes correspond to contiguous text spans. Each node in a tree is characterized by a status (nucleus or satellite) and a rhetorical relation, which is a relation that holds between two non-overlapping text spans. The distinction between nuclei and satellites comes from the empirical observation that the nucleus expresses what is more essential to the writer's intention than the satellite; and that the nucleus of a rhetorical relation is comprehensible independent of the satellite, but not vice versa. When spans are equally important, the relation is multinuclear. Rhetorical relations reflect semantic, intentional, and textual relations that hold between text spans as is illustrated in Figure 2 . For example, one text span may elaborate on another text span; the information in two text spans may be in contrast; and the information in one text span may provide background for the information presented in another text span. Figure 2 displays in the style of Mann and Thompson (1988) the rhetorical structure tree of a text fragment. In Figure 2 , nuclei are represented using straight lines; satellites using arcs. Internal nodes are labeled with rhetorical relation names.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 42,
"text": "RST (Mann and Thompson, 1988)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 879,
"end": 887,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
},
{
"start": 1119,
"end": 1127,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
},
{
"start": 1231,
"end": 1239,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Rhetorical Structure Theory Features",
"sec_num": "3.2.3"
},
{
"text": "We built RST trees automatically for each essay using the cue-phrase-based discourse parser of Marcu (2000) . We then associated with each sentence in an essay a feature that reflected the status of its parent node (nucleus or satellite), and another feature that reflected its rhetorical relation. For example, for the last sentence in Figure 2 we associated the status satellite and the relation elaboration because that sentence is the satellite of an elaboration relation. For sentence 2, we associated the status nucleus and the relation elaboration because that sentence is the nucleus of an elaboration relation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 107,
"text": "Marcu (2000)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 337,
"end": 345,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Rhetorical Structure Theory Features",
"sec_num": "3.2.3"
},
{
"text": "We found that some rhetorical relations occurred more frequently in sentences annotated as thesis statements. Therefore, the conditional probabilities for such relations were higher and provided evidence that certain sentences were thesis statements. The Contrast relation shown in Figure 2 , for example, was a rhetorical relation that occurred more often in thesis statements. Arguably, there may be some overlap between words in thesis statements, and rhetorical relations used to build the classifier. The RST relations, however, capture long distance relations between text spans, which are not accounted by the words in our thesis word list.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 282,
"end": 290,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Rhetorical Structure Theory Features",
"sec_num": "3.2.3"
},
{
"text": "We estimated the performance of our system using a six-fold cross validation procedure. We partitioned the 93 essays that were labeled by both human annotators with a thesis statement into six groups. (The judges agreed that 7 of the 100 essays they annotated had no thesis statement.) We trained six times on 5/6 of the labeled data and evaluated the performance on the other 1/6 of the data. The evaluation results in Table 2 show the average performance of our classifier with respect to the resolved annotation (Alg. wrt. Resolved), using traditional recall (R), precision (P), and F-value (F) metrics. For purposes of comparison, Table 2 also shows the performance of two baselines: the random baseline classifies the thesis statements randomly; while the position baseline assumes that the thesis statement is given by the first sentence in each essay. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 420,
"end": 427,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 635,
"end": 642,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation of the Bayesian classifier",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "In commercial settings, it is crucial that a classifier such as the one discussed in Section 3 generalizes across different test questions. New test questions are introduced on a regular basis; so it is important that a classifier that works well for a given data set works well for other data sets as well, without requiring additional annotations and training. For the thesis statement classifier it was important to determine whether the positional, lexical, and RST-specific features are topic independent, and thus generalizable to new test questions. If so, this would indicate that we could annotate thesis statements across a number of topics, and re-use the algorithm on additional topics, without further annotation. We asked a writing expert to manually annotate the thesis statement in approximately 45 essays for 4 additional test questions: Topics A, C, D and E. The annotator completed this task using the same interface that was used by the two annotators in Experiment 1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generality of the Thesis Statement Identifier",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "To test generalizability for each of the five EPT questions, the thesis sentences selected by a writing expert were used for building the classifier. Five combinations of 4 prompts were used to build the classifier in each case, and the resulting classifier was then cross-validated on the fifth topic, which was treated as test data. To evaluate the performance of each of the classifiers, agreement was calculated for each 'cross-validation' sample (single topic) by comparing the algorithm selection to our writing expert's thesis statement selections.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generality of the Thesis Statement Identifier",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "For example, we trained on Topics A, C, D, and E, using the thesis statements selected manually. This classifier was then used to select, automatically, thesis statements for Topic B. In the evaluation, the algorithm's selection was compared to the manually selected set of thesis statements for Topic B, and agreement was calculated. Table 3 illustrates that in all but one case, agreement exceeds both baselines from Table 2 . In this set of manual annotations, the human judge almost always selected one sentence as the thesis statement. This is why Precision, Recall, and the F-value are often equal in Table 3 . ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 335,
"end": 342,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 426,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 607,
"end": 614,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Generality of the Thesis Statement Identifier",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The results of our experimental work indicate that the task of identifying thesis statements in essays is well defined. The empirical evaluation of our algorithm indicates that with a relatively small corpus of manually annotated essay data, one can build a Bayes classifier that identifies thesis statements with good accuracy. The evaluations also provide evidence that this method for automated thesis selection in essays is generalizable. That is, once trained on a few human annotated prompts, it can be applied to other prompts given a similar population of writers, in this case, writers at the college freshman level. The larger implication is that we begin to see that there are underlying discourse elements in essays that can be identified, independent of the topic of the test question. For essay evaluation applications this is critical since new test questions are continuously being introduced into on-line essay evaluation applications.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and Conclusions",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Our results compare favorably with results reported by Teufel and Moens (1999) who also use Bayes classification techniques to identify rhetorical arguments such as aim and background in scientific texts, although the texts we are working with are extremely noisy. Because EPT essays are often produced for high-stake exams, under severe time constraints, they are often ungrammatical, repetitive, and poorly organized at the discourse level.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 78,
"text": "Teufel and Moens (1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and Conclusions",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Current investigations indicate that this technique can be used to reliably identify other essay-specific discourse elements, such as, concluding statements, main points of arguments, and supporting ideas. In addition, we are exploring how we can use estimated probabilities as confidence measures of the decisions made by the system. If the confidence level associated with the identification of a thesis statement is low, the system would instruct the student that no explicit thesis statement has been found in the essay.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion and Conclusions",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "In our research, we trained classifiers using a classical Bayes approach too, where two classifiers were built: a thesis classifier and a non-thesis",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "We would like to thank our annotation experts, Marisa Farnum, Hilary Persky, Todd Farley, and Andrea King.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgements",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Automated Scoring Using A Hybrid Feature Identification Technique",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Burstein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kukich",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wolff",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chodorow",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Braden-Harder",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Harris",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "206--210",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Burstein, J., Kukich, K. Wolff, S. Lu, C. Chodorow, M, Braden-Harder, L. and Harris M.D. (1998). Automated Scoring Using A Hybrid Feature Identification Technique. Proceedings of ACL, 206-210.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "The Measurement of Textual Coherence with Latent Semantic Analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Foltz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kintsch",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Landauer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Discourse Processes",
"volume": "25",
"issue": "",
"pages": "285--307",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Foltz, P. W., Kintsch, W., and Landauer, T.. (1998). The Measurement of Textual Coherence with Latent Semantic Analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2&3), 285-307.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Attention, Intention, and the Structure of Discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sidner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1980,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "12",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "175--204",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Grosz B. and Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, Intention, and the Structure of Discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12 (3), 175-204. Krippendorff K. (1980). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Sage Publ. Larkey, L. and Croft, W. B. (1996).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Combining Classifiers in Text Categorization",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proceedings of SIGIR",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "289--298",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Combining Classifiers in Text Categorization. Proceedings of SIGIR, 289-298.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Automatic Essay Grading Using Text Categorization Techniques",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Larkey",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of SIGIR",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "90--95",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Larkey, L. (1998). Automatic Essay Grading Using Text Categorization Techniques. Proceedings of SIGIR, pages 90-95.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Advances in Automatic Text Summarization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mani",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Maybury",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mani, I. and Maybury, M. (1999). Advances in Automatic Text Summarization. The MIT Press. Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A.(1988).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "Text",
"volume": "8",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "243--281",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization. Text 8(3), 243-281.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Martin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Martin, J. (1992). English Text. System and Structure. John Benjamin Publishers. Marcu, D. (2000). The Theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. The MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "A Comparison of Event Models for Naive Bayes Text Classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mccallum",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nigam",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [
"B"
],
"last": "Page",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Peterson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "The AAAI-98 Workshop on",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "561--565",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "McCallum, A. and Nigam, K. (1998). A Comparison of Event Models for Naive Bayes Text Classification. The AAAI-98 Workshop on \"Learning for Text Categorization\". Page, E.B. and Peterson, N. (1995). The computer moves into essay grading: updating the ancient test. Phi Delta Kappa, March, 561- 565.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Development of Dialectical Processes in Composition",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "Literacy, Language, and Learning: The nature of consequences of reading and writing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Development of Dialectical Processes in Composition. In Olson, D. R., Torrance, N. and Hildyard, A. (eds), Literacy, Language, and Learning: The nature of consequences of reading and writing. Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Discourselevel argumentation in scientific articles",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Teufel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moens",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of the ACL99 Workshop on Standards and Tools for Discourse Tagging. White E.M",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "103--108",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Teufel , S. and Moens, M. (1999). Discourse- level argumentation in scientific articles. Proceedings of the ACL99 Workshop on Standards and Tools for Discourse Tagging. White E.M. (1994). Teaching and Assessing Writing. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 103-108.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"text": "Sample student essay with human annotations of thesis statements. b) Does my thesis statement respond directly to the essay question? c) Are the main points in my essay clearly stated? d) Do the main points in my essay relate",
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"text": "Example of RST tree.",
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"TABREF0": {
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Metric</td><td>Thesis</td><td>Summary</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Statements</td><td>Sentences</td></tr><tr><td>Kappa</td><td>0.733</td><td>0.603</td></tr><tr><td>P (1 vs. 2)</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.44</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">R (1 vs. 2) 0.69</td><td>0.60</td></tr><tr><td>F (1 vs. 2)</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.51</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "",
"num": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Thesis statements vs.</td></tr><tr><td>Summary sentences</td></tr><tr><td>Percent Overlap 0.06</td></tr><tr><td>The results in</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "",
"num": null
},
"TABREF2": {
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"2\">System vs. system</td><td>P</td><td>R</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td>Random</td><td>baseline</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.06 0.05 0.06</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">wrt. Resolved</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Position baseline wrt.</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.26 0.22 0.24</td></tr><tr><td>Resolved</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Alg. wrt. Resolved</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.55 0.46 0.50</td></tr><tr><td>1 wrt. 2</td><td/><td colspan=\"3\">0.73 0.69 0.71</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">1 wrt. Resolved</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.77 0.78 0.78</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">2 wrt. Resolved</td><td colspan=\"3\">0.68 0.74 0.71</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "",
"num": null
},
"TABREF3": {
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Training</td><td>CV Topic</td><td>P</td><td>R</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td>Topics</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>ABCD</td><td>E</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.36</td></tr><tr><td>ABCE</td><td>D</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.49</td></tr><tr><td>ABDE</td><td>C</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.45</td></tr><tr><td>ACDE</td><td>B</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.59</td></tr><tr><td>BCDE</td><td>A</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.25</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td/><td>0.43</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.43</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "",
"num": null
}
}
}
} |