File size: 105,845 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 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 | {
"paper_id": "P95-1015",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:34:01.098528Z"
},
"title": "Combining Multiple Knowledge Sources for Discourse Segmentation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Diane",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Passonneau",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We predict discourse segment boundaries from linguistic features of utterances, using a corpus of spoken narratives as data. We present two methods for developing segmentation algorithms from training data: hand tuning and machine learning. When multiple types of features are used, results approach human performance on an independent test set (both methods), and using cross-validation (machine learning).",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P95-1015",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We predict discourse segment boundaries from linguistic features of utterances, using a corpus of spoken narratives as data. We present two methods for developing segmentation algorithms from training data: hand tuning and machine learning. When multiple types of features are used, results approach human performance on an independent test set (both methods), and using cross-validation (machine learning).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Many have argued that discourse has a global structure above the level of individual utterances, and that linguistic phenomena like prosody, cue phrases, and nominal reference are partly conditioned by and reflect this structure (cf. Grosz and Sidner, 1986; Hirschberg and Litman, 1993; Hirschberg and Pierrehumbert, 1986; Hobbs, 1979; Lascarides and Oberlander, 1992; Linde, 1979; Mann and Thompson, 1988; Polanyi, 1988; Reichman, 1985; Webber, 1991) ). However, an obstacle to exploiting the relation between global structure and linguistic devices in natural language systems is that there is too little data about how they constrain one another. We have been engaged in a study addressing this gap. In previous work (Passonneau and Litman, 1993) , we reported on a method for empirically validating global discourse units, and on our evaluation of algorithms to identify these units. We found significant agreement among naive subjects on a discourse segmentation task, which suggests that global discourse units have some objective reality. However, we also found poor correlation of three untuned algorithms (based on features of referential noun phrases, cue words, and pauses, respectively) with the subjects' segmentations.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 234,
"end": 257,
"text": "Grosz and Sidner, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 286,
"text": "Hirschberg and Litman, 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 322,
"text": "Hirschberg and Pierrehumbert, 1986;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 335,
"text": "Hobbs, 1979;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 368,
"text": "Lascarides and Oberlander, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 381,
"text": "Linde, 1979;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 382,
"end": 406,
"text": "Mann and Thompson, 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 421,
"text": "Polanyi, 1988;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 422,
"end": 437,
"text": "Reichman, 1985;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 451,
"text": "Webber, 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 720,
"end": 749,
"text": "(Passonneau and Litman, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we discuss two methods for developing segmentation algorithms using multiple know-*Bellcore did not support the second author's work. ledge sources. In section 2, we give a brief overview of related work and summarize our previous results. In section 3, we discuss how linguistic features are coded and describe our evaluation. In section 4, we present our analysis of the errors made by the best performing untuned algorithm, and a new algorithm that relies on enriched input features and multiple knowledge sources. In section 5, we discuss our use of machine learning tools to automatically construct decision trees for segmentation from a large set of input features. Both the hand tuned and automatically derived algorithms improve over our previous algorithms. The primary benefit of the hand tuning is to identify new input features for improving performance. Machine learning tools make it convenient to perform numerous experiments, to use large feature sets, and to evaluate results using crossvalidation. We discuss the significance of our results and briefly compare the two methods in section 6.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Discourse Segmentation",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Segmentation has played a significant role in much work on discourse. The linguistic structure of Grosz and Sidner's (1986) tri-partite discourse model consists of multi-utterance segments whose hierarchical relations are isomorphic with intentional structure. In other work (e.g., (Hobbs, 1979; Polanyi, 1988) ), segmental structure is an artifact of coherence relations among utterances, and few if any specific claims are made regarding segmental structure per se. Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) (Mann and Thompson, 1988) is another tradition of defining relations among utterances, and informs much work in generation. In addition, recent work (Moore and Paris, 1993; Moore and Pollack, 1992) has addressed the integration of intentions and rhetorical relations. Although all of these approaches have involved detailed analyses of individual discourses or representative corpora, we believe there is a need for more rigorous empirical studies.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 123,
"text": "Grosz and Sidner's (1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 295,
"text": "(Hobbs, 1979;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 310,
"text": "Polanyi, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 502,
"end": 527,
"text": "(Mann and Thompson, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 651,
"end": 674,
"text": "(Moore and Paris, 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 675,
"end": 699,
"text": "Moore and Pollack, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Researchers have begun to investigate the ability of humans to agree with one another on segmen-tation, and to propose methodologies for quantifying their findings. Several studies have used expert coders to locally and globally structure spoken discourse according to the model of Grosz and Sidnet (1986) , including Nakatani et al., 1995; Stifleman, 1995) . Hearst (1994) asked subjects to place boundaries between paragraphs of expository texts, to indicate topic changes. Moser and Moore (1995) had an expert coder assign segments and various segment features and relations based on RST. To quantify their findings, these studies use notions of agreement (Gale et al., 1992; Moset and Moore, 1995) and/or reliability (Passonneau and Litman, 1993; Passonneau and Litman, to appear; Isard and Carletta, 1995) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 282,
"end": 305,
"text": "Grosz and Sidnet (1986)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 340,
"text": "Nakatani et al., 1995;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 357,
"text": "Stifleman, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 373,
"text": "Hearst (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 498,
"text": "Moser and Moore (1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 659,
"end": 678,
"text": "(Gale et al., 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 679,
"end": 701,
"text": "Moset and Moore, 1995)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 721,
"end": 750,
"text": "(Passonneau and Litman, 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 751,
"end": 784,
"text": "Passonneau and Litman, to appear;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 785,
"end": 810,
"text": "Isard and Carletta, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "By asking subjects to segment discourse using a non-linguistic criterion, the correlation of linguistic devices with independently derived segments can then be investigated in a way that avoids circularity. Together, Nakatani et al., 1995) comprise an ongoing study using three corpora: professionally read AP news stories, spontaneous narrative, and read and spontaneous versions of task-oriented monologues. Discourse structures are derived from subjects' segmentations, then statistical measures are used to characterize these structures in terms of acoustic-prosodic features. Grosz and Hirschberg's work also used the classification and regression tree system CART (Breiman et al., 1984) to automatically construct and evaluate decision trees for classifying aspects of discourse structure from intonational feature values. Morris and Hirst (1991) structured a set of magazine texts using the theory of (Grosz and Sidner, 1986) , developed a thesaurus-based lexical cohesion algorithm to segment text, then qualitatively compared their segmentations with the results. Hearst (1994) presented two implemented segmentation algorithms based on term repetition, and compared the boundaries produced to the boundaries marked by at least 3 of 7 subjects, using information retrieval metrics. Kozima (1993) had 16 subjects segment a simplified short story, developed an algorithm based on lexical cohesion, and qualitatively compared the results. Reynar (1994) proposed an algorithm based on lexical cohesion in conjunction with a graphical technique, and used information retrieval metrics to evaluate the algorithm's performance in locating boundaries between concatenated news articles.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 239,
"text": "Nakatani et al., 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 670,
"end": 692,
"text": "(Breiman et al., 1984)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 829,
"end": 852,
"text": "Morris and Hirst (1991)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 908,
"end": 932,
"text": "(Grosz and Sidner, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 1073,
"end": 1086,
"text": "Hearst (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 1291,
"end": 1304,
"text": "Kozima (1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 1445,
"end": 1458,
"text": "Reynar (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "We have been investigating a corpus of monologues collected and transcribed by Chafe (1980) , known as the Pear stories. As reported in (Passonneau and Litman, 1993) , we first investigated whether units of global structure consisting of sequences of utterances could be reliably identified by naive sub-jects. We analyzed linear segmentations of 20 narratives performed by naive subjects (7 new subjects per narrative), where speaker intention was the segment criterion. Subjects were given transcripts, asked to place a new segment boundary between lines (prosodic phrases) 1 wherever the speaker had a new communicative goal, and to briefly describe the completed segment. Subjects were free to assign any number of boundaries. The qualitative results were that segments varied in size from 1 to 49 phrases in length (Avg.-5.9), and the rate at which subjects assigned boundaries ranged from 5.5% to 41.3%. Despite this variation, we found statistically significant agreement among subjects across all narratives on location of segment boundaries (.114 z 10 -6 < p < .6 z 10-9).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 91,
"text": "Chafe (1980)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 165,
"text": "(Passonneau and Litman, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Our Previous Results",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We then looked at the predictive power of linguistic cues for identifying the segment boundaries agreed upon by a significant number of subjects. We used three distinct algorithms based on the distribution of referential noun phrases, cue words, and pauses, respectively. Each algorithm (NP-A, CUE-A, PAUSE-A) was designed to replicate the subjects' segmentation task (break up a narrative into contiguous segments, with segment breaks falling between prosodic phrases). NP-A used three features, while CUE-A and PAUSE-A each made use of a single feature. The features are a subset of those described in section 3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Our Previous Results",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To evaluate how well an algorithm predicted segmental structure, we used the information retrieval (IR) metrics described in section 3. As reported in (Passonneau and Litman, to appear), we also evaluated a simple additive method for combining algorithms in which a boundary is proposed if each separate algorithm proposes a boundary. We tested all pairwise combinations, and the combination of all three algorithms. No algorithm or combination of algorithms performed as well as humans. NP-A performed better than the other unimodal algorithms, and a combination of NP-A and PAUSE-A performed best. We felt that significant improvements could be gained by combining the input features in more complex ways rather than by simply combining the outputs of independent algorithms.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Our Previous Results",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We represent each narrative in our corpus as a sequence of potential boundary sites, which occur between prosodic phrases. We classify a potential boundary site as boundary if it was identified as such by at least 3 of the 7 subjects in our earlier study.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Boundary Classification",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Otherwise it is classified as non-boundary. Agreement among subjects on boundaries was significant at below the .02% level for values ofj ___ 3, where j is 1 We used Chafe's (1980) the number of subjects (1 to 7), on all 20 narratives. 2 Fig. 1 shows a typical segmentation of one of the narratives in our corpus. Each line corresponds to a prosodic phrase, and each space between the lines corresponds to a potential boundary site. The bracketed numbers will be explained below. The boxes in the figure show the subjects' responses at each potential boundary site, and the resulting boundary classification. Only 2 of the 7 possible boundary sites are classified as boundary.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 180,
"text": "Chafe's (1980)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 238,
"end": 244,
"text": "Fig. 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Boundary Classification",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Given a narrative of n prosodic phrases, the n-1 potential boundary sites are between each pair of prosodic phrases Pi and P/+I, i from 1 to n-1. Each potential boundary site in our corpus is coded using the set of linguistic features shown in Fig. 2 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 244,
"end": 250,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coding of Linguistic Features",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Values for the prosodic features are obtained by automatic analysis of the transcripts, whose conventions are defined in (Chafe, 1980) and illustrated in Fig. h .... and \"?\" indicate sentencefinal intonational contours; \",\" indicates phrase-final but not sentence final intonation; \"[X]\" indicates a pause lasting X seconds; \"..\" indicates a break in timing too short to be measured. The features before and after depend on the final punctuation of the phrases Pi and Pi+I, respectively. The value is '+sentence.final.contour' if \".\" or \"?\", 'sentence.final.contour' if \",\". Pause is assigned 'true' if Pi+l begins with [X], 'false' otherwise. Duration is assigned X if pause is 'true', 0 otherwise.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 134,
"text": "(Chafe, 1980)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 154,
"end": 160,
"text": "Fig. h",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coding of Linguistic Features",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The cue phrase features are also obtained by automatic analysis of the transcripts. Cue1 is assigned 'true' if the first lexical item in PI+I is a member of the set of cue words summarized in (Hirschberg and Litman, 1993) . Word1 is assigned this lexical item if 2We previously used agreement by 4 subjects as the threshold for boundaries; for j > 4, agreement was significant at the .01~0 level. (Passonneau and Litman, 1993) \u2022 Prosodic Features -before:+sentence.final.contour,-sentence.flnal.contour -after: +sentence.final.contour,-sentence.flnal.contour. -pause: true, false.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 192,
"end": 221,
"text": "(Hirschberg and Litman, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 426,
"text": "(Passonneau and Litman, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coding of Linguistic Features",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "-duration: continuous.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coding of Linguistic Features",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Cue Phrase Features -cue1: true, false.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coding of Linguistic Features",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "-word1: also, and, anyway, basically, because, but, finally, first, like, meanwhile, no, now, oh, okay, only, or, see, so, then, well, where, NA. --cue2: true, false.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coding of Linguistic Features",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "-word2: and, anyway, because, boy, but, now, okay, or, right, so, still, then, NA.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Coding of Linguistic Features",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "-coref: +coref,-corer, NA.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2022 Noun Phrase Features",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "infer: +infer, -infer, NA.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2022 Noun Phrase Features",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "-global.pro: +global.pro, -global.pro, NA.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2022 Noun Phrase Features",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "--cue-prosody: complex, true, false. cuel is true, 'NA' (not applicable) otherwise, a Cue2 is assigned 'true' if cue, is true and the second lexical item is also a cue word. Word2 is assigned the second lexical item if cue2 is true, 'NA' otherwise.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2022 Combined Feature",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Two of the noun phrase (NP) features are handcoded, along with functionally independent clauses (FICs), following (Passonneau, 1994) . The two authors coded independently and merged their results. Cue-prosody, which encodes a combination of prosodic and cue word features, was motivated by an analysis of IR errors on our training data, as described in section 4. Cue-prosody is 'complex' if:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 132,
"text": "(Passonneau, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2022 Combined Feature",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "aThe cue phrases that occur in the corpus &re shown as potential values in Fig. 2. 4The NP algorithm can assign multiple boundaries within one prosodic phrase if the phrase contains multiple clauses; these very rare cases are normalized (Passonneau and Else, cue-prosody has the same values as pause. Fig. 3 illustrates how the first boundary site in Fig. 1 would be coded using the features in Fig. 2 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 82,
"text": "Fig. 2.",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 307,
"text": "Fig. 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 357,
"text": "Fig. 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 401,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2022 Combined Feature",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The prosodic and cue phrase features were motivated by previous results in the literature. For example, phrases beginning discourse segments were correlated with preceding pause duration in ttirschberg and Grosz, 1992) . These and other studies (e.g.~ (iiirschberg and Litman, 1993)) also found it useful to distinguish between sentence and non-sentence final intonational contours. Initial phrase position was correlated with discourse signaling uses of cue words in (Hirschberg and Litman, 1993) ; a potential correlation between discourse signaling uses of cue words and adjacency patterns between cue words was also suggested. Finally, (Litman, 1994) found that treating cue phrases individually rather than as a class enhanced the results of (iiirschberg and .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 190,
"end": 218,
"text": "ttirschberg and Grosz, 1992)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 497,
"text": "(Hirschberg and Litman, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 640,
"end": 654,
"text": "(Litman, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2022 Combined Feature",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Passonneau (to appear) examined some of the few claims relating discourse anaphoric noun phrases to global discourse structure in the Pear corpus. Resuits included an absence of correlation of segmental structure with centering (Grosz et al., 1983; Kameyama, 1986) , and poor correlation with the contrast between full noun phrases and pronouns. As noted in (Passonneau and Litman, 1993) , the NP features largely reflect Passonneau's hypotheses that adjacent utterances are more likely to contain expressions that corefer, or that are inferentially linked, if they occur within the same segment; and that a definite pronoun is more likely than a full NP to refer to an entity that was mentioned in the current segment, if not in the previous utterance.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 228,
"end": 248,
"text": "(Grosz et al., 1983;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 264,
"text": "Kameyama, 1986)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 358,
"end": 387,
"text": "(Passonneau and Litman, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "\u2022 Combined Feature",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The segmentation algorithms presented in the next two sections were developed by examining only a training set of narratives. The algorithms are then evaluated by examining their performance in predicting segmentation on a separate test set. We currently use 10 narratives for training and 5 narratives for testing. (The remaining 5 narratives are reserved for future research.) The 10 training narratives validation (Weiss and Kulikowski, 1991) , as detailed in Section 5. To quantify algorithm performance, we use the information retrieval metrics shown in Fig. 4 . Recall is the ratio of correctly hypothesized boundaries to target boundaries. Precision is the ratio of hypothesized boundaries that are correct to the total hypothesized boundaries. (Cf. Fig. 4 for fallout and error.) Ideal behavior would be to identify all and only the target boundaries: the values for b and c in Fig. 4 would thus both equal O, representing no errors. The ideal values for recall, precision, fallout, and error are 1, 1, 0, and 0, while the worst values are 0, 0, 1, and 1. To get an intuitive summary of overall performance, we also sum the deviation of the observed value from the ideal value for each metric: (1-recall) + (1-precision) + fallout + error. The summed deviation for perfect performance is thus 0.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 406,
"end": 445,
"text": "validation (Weiss and Kulikowski, 1991)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 559,
"end": 565,
"text": "Fig. 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
},
{
"start": 757,
"end": 763,
"text": "Fig. 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
},
{
"start": 886,
"end": 892,
"text": "Fig. 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Finally, to interpret our quantitative results, we use the performance of our human subjects as a target goal for the performance of our algorithms (Gale et al., 1992) . Table 1 shows the average human performance for both the training and test sets of narratives. Note that human performance is basically the same for both sets of narratives. However, two factors prevent this performance from being closer to ideal (e.g., recall and precision of 1). The first is the wide variation in the number of boundaries that subjects used, as discussed above. The second is the inherently fuzzy nature of boundary location. We discuss this second issue at length in (Passonnean and Litman, to appear), and present relaxed IR metrics that penalize near misses less heavily in (Litman and Passonneau, 1995) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 167,
"text": "(Gale et al., 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 779,
"end": 796,
"text": "Passonneau, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 177,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "To improve performance, we analyzed the two types of IR errors made by the original NP algorithm (Passonneau and Litman, 1993) on the training data. Type \"b\" errors (cf. Fig. 4 ), mis-classification of non-boundaries, were reduced by changing the coding features pertaining to clauses and NPs. Most \"b\" errors correlated with two conditions used in the NP algorithm, identification of clauses and of inferential links. The revision led to fewer clauses (more assignments of 'NA' for the three NP features) and more inference relations. One example of a change to clause coding is that formulaic utterances having the structure of clauses, but which function like interjections, are no longer recognized as independent clauses. These include the phrases let's see, let me see, I don't know, you know when they occur with no verb phrase argument. Other changes pertained to sentence fragments, unexpected clausal arguments, and embedded speech. Three types of inference relations linking successive clauses (Ci-1, Ci) were added (originally there were 5 types (Passonneau, 1994) ). Now, a pronoun (e.g., it, that, this) in Ci referring to an action, event or fact inferrable from Ci-1 links the two clauses. So does an implicit argument, as in Fig. 5 , where the missing argument of notice is inferred to be the event of the pears falling. The third case is where an NP in Ci is described as part of an event that results directly from an event mentioned in Ci-1.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1058,
"end": 1076,
"text": "(Passonneau, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 176,
"text": "Fig. 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
},
{
"start": 1242,
"end": 1248,
"text": "Fig. 5",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Hand Tuning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "\"C\" type errors (cf. Fig. 4 ), mis-classification of boundaries, often occurred where prosodic and cue features conflicted with NP features. The original NP algorithm assigned boundaries wherever the three values '-coref', '-infer', '-global.pro' (defined in section 3) co-occurred, represented as the first conditional statement of Fig. 6 . Experiments led to the hypothesis that the most improvement came by assigning a boundary if the cue-prosody feature had the value 'complex', even if the algorithm would not otherwise assign a boundary, as shown in Fig. 6 We refer to the original NP algorithm applied to the initial coding as Condition 1, and the tuned algorithm applied to the enriched coding as Condition 2. Table 2 presents the average IR scores across the narratives in the training set for both conditions. Reduction of \"b\" type errors raises precision, and lowers fallout and error rate. Reduction of \"c\" type errors raises recall, and lowers fallout and error rate. All scores improve in Condition 2, with precision and fallout showing the greatest relative improvement. The major difference from human performance is relatively poorer precision.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 27,
"text": "Fig. 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 339,
"text": "Fig. 6",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 556,
"end": 562,
"text": "Fig. 6",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 718,
"end": 725,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF6"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Hand Tuning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The standard deviations in Table 2 are often close to 1/4 or 1/3 of the reported averages. This indicates a large amount of variability in the data, reflecting wide differences across narratives (speakers) in the training set with respect to the distinctions recognized by the algorithm. Although the high standard deviations show that the tuned algorithm is not well fitted to each narrative, it is likely that it is overspecialized to the training sample in the sense that test narratives are likely to exhibit further variation. Table 3 shows the results of the hand tuned algorithm on the 5 randomly selected test narratives on both Conditions 1 and 2. Condition 1 results, the untuned algorithm with the initial feature set, are very similar to the training set except for worse precision. Thus, despite the high standard deviations, 10 narratives seems to have been a sufficient sample size for evaluating the initial NP algorithm. Condition 2 results are better than condition 1 in Table 3 , and condition 1 in Table 2 . This is strong evidence that the tuned algorithm is a better predictor of segment boundaries than the original NP algorithm. Nevertheless, the test results of condition 2 are much worse than the corresponding training results, particularly for precision (.44 versus .62 confirms that the tuned algorithm is over calibrated to the training set.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1282,
"end": 1297,
"text": "(.44 versus .62",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 34,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF6"
},
{
"start": 532,
"end": 539,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF7"
},
{
"start": 989,
"end": 996,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF7"
},
{
"start": 1018,
"end": 1025,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF6"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Hand Tuning",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We use the machine learning program C4.5 (Quinlan, 1993) to automatically develop segmentation algorithms from our corpus of coded narratives, where each potential boundary site has been classified and represented as a set of linguistic features. The first input to C4.5 specifies the names of the classes to be learned (boundary and non-boundary), and the names and potential values of a fixed set of coding features (Fig. 2) . The second input is the training data, i.e., a set of examples for which the class and feature values (as in Fig. 3 ) are specified. Our training set of 10 narratives provides 1004 examples of potential boundary sites. The output of C4.5 is a classification algorithm expressed as a decision tree, which predicts the class of a potential boundary given its set of feature values. Because machine learning makes it convenient to induce decision trees under a wide variety of conditions, we have performed numerous experiments, varying the number of features used to code the training data, the definitions used for classifying a potential boundary site as boundary or non-boundary 5 and the options available for running the C4.5 program. Fig. 7 shows one of the highest-performing learned decision trees from our experiments. This decision tree was learned under the following conditions: all of the features shown in Fig. 2 were used to code the training data, boundaries were classified as discussed in section 3, and C4.5 was run using only the default options. The decision tree predicts the class of a potential boundary site based on the features before, after, duration, cuel, wordl, corer, infer, and global.pro. Note that although not all available features are used in the tree, the included features represent 3 of the 4 general types of knowledge (prosody, cue phrases and noun phrases). Each level of the tree specifies a test on a single feature, with a branch for every possible outcome of the test. 6 A branch can either lead to the assignment of a class, or to another test. For example, the tree initially branches based on the value of the feature before.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 56,
"text": "(Quinlan, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 418,
"end": 426,
"text": "(Fig. 2)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 538,
"end": 544,
"text": "Fig. 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
},
{
"start": 1167,
"end": 1173,
"text": "Fig. 7",
"ref_id": "FIGREF4"
},
{
"start": 1347,
"end": 1353,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Machine Learning",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "If the value is '-sentence.final.contour' then the first branch is taken and the potential boundary site is assigned the class non-boundary. If the value of before is 'q-sentence.final.contour' then the second branch is taken and the feature corer is tested.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Machine Learning",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "The performance of this learned decision tree averaged over the 10 training narratives is shown in Table 4 , on the line labeled \"Learning 1\". The line labeled \"Learning 2\" shows the results from another 5 (Litman and Passonneau, 1995) machine learning experiment, in which one of the default C4.5 options used in \"Learning 1\" is overridden. The \"Learning 2\" tree (not shown due to space restrictions) is more complex than the tree of Fig. 7 , but has slightly better performance. Note that \"Learning 1\" performance is comparable to human performance (Table 1) , while \"Learning 2\" is slightly better than humans. The results obtained via machine learning are also somewhat better than the results obtained using hand tuning--particularly with respect to precision (\"Condition 2\" in Table 2) , and are a great improvement over the original NP results (\"Condition 1\" in Table 2 ). The performance of the learned decision trees averaged over the 5 test narratives is shown in Table 5 . Tables 4 and 5 shows that, as with the hand tuning results (and as expected), average performance is worse when applied to the testing rather than the training data particularly with respect to precision. However, performance is an improvement over our previous best results (\"Condition 1\" in Table 3), and is comparable to (\"Learning 1\") or very slightly better than (\"Learning 2\") the hand tuning results (\"Condition 2\" in Table 3 ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 206,
"end": 235,
"text": "(Litman and Passonneau, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 106,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": "TABREF9"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 441,
"text": "Fig. 7",
"ref_id": "FIGREF4"
},
{
"start": 551,
"end": 560,
"text": "(Table 1)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 783,
"end": 791,
"text": "Table 2)",
"ref_id": "TABREF6"
},
{
"start": 869,
"end": 876,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF6"
},
{
"start": 974,
"end": 981,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": "TABREF10"
},
{
"start": 984,
"end": 998,
"text": "Tables 4 and 5",
"ref_id": "TABREF9"
},
{
"start": 1409,
"end": 1416,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF7"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Machine Learning",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We also use the resampling method of crossvalidation (Weiss and Kulikowski, 1991) to estimate performance, which averages results over multiple partitions of a sample into test versus training data. We performed 10 runs of the learning program, each using 9 of the 10 training narratives for that run's Table 6 : Using 10-fold cross-validation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 81,
"text": "(Weiss and Kulikowski, 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 303,
"end": 310,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison of",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "training set (for learning the tree) and the remaining narrative for testing. Note that for each iteration of the cross-validation, the learning process begins from scratch and thus each training and testing set are still disjoint. While this method does not make sense for humans, computers can truly ignore previous iterations. For sample sizes in the hundreds (our 10 narratives provide 1004 examples) 1O-fold cross-validation often provides a better performance estimate than the hold-out method (Weiss and Kulikowski, 1991) . Results using cross-validation are shown in Table 6 , and are better than the estimates obtained using the hold-out method (Table 5) , with the major improvement coming from precision. Because a different tree is learned on each iteration, the cross-validation evaluates the learning method, not a particular decision tree.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 511,
"end": 528,
"text": "Kulikowski, 1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 575,
"end": 582,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 654,
"end": 663,
"text": "(Table 5)",
"ref_id": "TABREF10"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison of",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We have presented two methods for developing segmentation hypotheses using multiple linguistic features. The first method hand tunes features and algorithms based on analysis of training errors. The second method, machine learning, automatically induces decision trees from coded corpora. Both methods rely on an enriched set of input features compared to our previous work. With each method, we have achieved marked improvements in performance compared to our previous work and are approaching human performance. Note that quantitatively, the machine learning results are slightly better than the hand tuning results. The main difference on average performance is the higher precision of the automated algorithm. Furthermore, note that the machine learning algorithm used the changes to the coding features that resulted from the tuning methods. This suggests that hand tuning is a useful method for understanding how to best code the data, while ms-chine learning provides an effective (and automatic) way to produce an algorithm given a good feature representation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Our results lend further support to the hypothesis that linguistic devices correlate with discourse structure (cf. section 2.1), which itself has practical import. Understanding systems could infer segments as a step towards producing summaries, while generation systems could signal segments to increase comprehensibility/Our results also suggest that to best identify or convey segment boundaries, systems will need to exploit multiple signals simultaneously.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "We plan to continue our experiments by further merging the automated and analytic techniques, and evaluating new algorithms on our final test corpus. Because we have already used cross-validation, we do not anticipate significant degradation on new test narratives. An important area for future research is to develop principled methods for identifying distinct speaker strategies pertaining to how they signal segments. Performance of individual speakers varies widely as shown by the high standard deviations in our tables. The original NP, hand tuned, and machine learning algorithms all do relatively poorly on narrative 16 and relatively well on 11 (both in the test set) under all conditions. This lends support to the hypothesis that there may be consistent differences among speakers regarding strategies for signaling shifts in global discourse structure.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Classification and Regression Trees",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Leo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Breiman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jerome",
"middle": [],
"last": "Friedman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Oishen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stone",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Leo Breiman, Jerome Friedman, Richard Oishen, and C. Stone. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth and Brooks, Monterey, CA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "The Pear Stories",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Wallace",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Chafe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1980,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wallace L. Chafe. 1980. The Pear Stories. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Estimating upper and lower bounds on the performance of word-sense disambiguation programs",
"authors": [
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gale",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ken",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Church",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yarowsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proc. of the 30th ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "249--256",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "William Gale, Ken W. Church, and David Yarow- sky. 1992. Estimating upper and lower bounds on the performance of word-sense disambiguation programs. In Proc. of the 30th ACL, pages 249- 256.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Julia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hirschberg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Barbara Grosz and Julia Hirschberg. 1992. Some intonational characteristics of discourse structure.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Proc. of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "In Proc. of the International Conference on Spo- ken Language Processing.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Attention, intentions and the structure of discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Candace",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sidner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "12",
"issue": "",
"pages": "175--204",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Barbara Grosz and Candace Sidner. 1986. Atten- tion, intentions and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12:175-204.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aaravind",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Scott",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weinstein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "Proc. of the 21st ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "44--50",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Barbara J. Grosz, Aaravind K. Joshi, and Scott Weinstein. 1983. Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. In Proc. of the 21st ACL, pages 44-50.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Hirschberg a~d Pierrehumbert, 1986) who argue that comprehensibility improves if units are prosodically signaled",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "rCf. (Hirschberg a~d Pierrehumbert, 1986) who argue that comprehensibility improves if units are prosodically signaled.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marti",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Hearst",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proc, of the 32nd A CL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marti A. Hearst. 1994. Multi-paragraph segmenta- tion of expository text. In Proc, of the 32nd A CL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Intonational features of local and global discourse structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Julia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hirschberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proc. of the Darpa Workshop on Spoken Language",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Julia Hirschberg and Barbara Grosz. 1992. Intona- tional features of local and global discourse struc- ture. In Proc. of the Darpa Workshop on Spoken Language.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Julia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hirschberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Diane",
"middle": [],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "501--530",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Julia Hirschberg and Diane Litman. 1993. Empiri- cal studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics, 19(3):501-530.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "The intonational structuring of discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Julia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hirschberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Janet",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pierrehumbert",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Proc. of the 24th A CL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Julia Hirschberg and Janet Pierrehumbert. 1986. The intonational structuring of discourse. In Proc. of the 24th A CL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Coherence and coreference",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jerry",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hobbs",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "Cognitive Science",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "67--90",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jerry R. Hobbs. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3(1):67-90.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Replicability of transaction and action coding in the map task corpus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Amy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Isard",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jean",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carletta",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "AAA1 1995 Spring Symposium Series: Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "60--66",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Amy Isard and Jean Carletta. 1995. Replicabi- lity of transaction and action coding in the map task corpus. In AAA1 1995 Spring Symposium Series: Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpre- tation and Generation, pages 60-66.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "A property-sharing constraint in centering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Megumi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kameyama",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1986,
"venue": "Proc. of the 24th ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "200--206",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Megumi Kameyama. 1986. A property-sharing constraint in centering. In Proc. of the 24th ACL, pages 200-206.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Text segmentation based on similarity between words",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kozima",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Proc. of the 31st ACL (Student Session)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "286--288",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. Kozima. 1993. Text segmentation based on si- milarity between words. In Proc. of the 31st ACL (Student Session), pages 286-288.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Temporal coherence and defeasible knowledge. Theoretical Linguistics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alex",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lascarides",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Oberlander",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alex Lascarides and Jon Oberlander. 1992. Tempo- ral coherence and defeasible knowledge. Theoreti- cal Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Charlotte",
"middle": [],
"last": "Linde",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "Syntax and Semantics: Discourse and Syntax",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "337--354",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Charlotte Linde. 1979. Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse. In Talmy Givon, editor, Syntax and Semantics: Discourse and Syn- tax, pages 337-354. Academic Press, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Developing algorithms for discourse segmentation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Diane",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Passonneau",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "AAAI 1995 Spring Symposium Series: Empiri. cal Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "85--91",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Diane J. Litman and Rebecca J. Passonneau. 1995. Developing algorithms for discourse segmentation. In AAAI 1995 Spring Symposium Series: Empiri. cal Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Ge- neration, pages 85-91.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Classifying cue phrases in text and speech using machine learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Diane",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proc. of the 12th AAA1",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "806--813",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Diane J. Litman. 1994. Classifying cue phrases in text and speech using machine learning. In Proc. of the 12th AAA1, pages 806-813.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Rhetorical structure theory. TEXT",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "William",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sandra",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Thompson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "243--281",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "William C. Mann and Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory. TEXT, pages 243- 281.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Planning text for advisory dialogues: Capturing intentional and rhetorical information",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Johanna",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Moore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Cecile",
"middle": [],
"last": "Paris",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "",
"pages": "652--694",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johanna D. Moore and Cecile Paris. 1993. Planning text for advisory dialogues: Capturing intentional and rhetorical information. Computational Lin- guistics, 19:652-694.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Johanna",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Moore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Pollack",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "18",
"issue": "",
"pages": "537--544",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Johanna D. Moore and Martha E. Pollack. 1992. A problem for RST: The need for multi-level discourse analysis. Computational Linguistics, 18:537-544.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Lexical cohesion computed by thesaural relations as an indicator of the structure of text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jane",
"middle": [],
"last": "Morris",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Graeme",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ttirst",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "17",
"issue": "",
"pages": "21--48",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jane Morris and Graeme ttirst. 1991. Lexical co- hesion computed by thesaural relations as an in- dicator of the structure of text. Computational Linguistics, 17:21-48.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Using discourse analysis and automatic text generation to study discourse cue usage",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Megan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moser",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Julia",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Moore",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "AAAI 1995 Spring Symposium Series: Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "92--98",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Megan Moser and Julia D. Moore. 1995. Using dis- course analysis and automatic text generation to study discourse cue usage. In AAAI 1995 Spring Symposium Series: Empirical Methods in Dis- course Interpretation and Generation, pages 92- 98.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Discourse structure in spoken language: Studies on speech corpora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Christine",
"middle": [
"H"
],
"last": "Nakatani",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Julia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hirsehberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Grosz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "AAAI 1995 Spring Symposium Series: Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "106--112",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Christine H. Nakatani, Julia Hirsehberg, and Bar- bara J. Grosz. 1995. Discourse structure in spo- ken language: Studies on speech corpora. In AAAI 1995 Spring Symposium Series: Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Genera- tion, pages 106-112.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Intention-based segmentation: Human reliability and correlation with linguistic cues",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Passonneau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Diane",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Proc. of the 31st ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "148--155",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rebecca J. Passonneau and Diane J. Litman. 1993. Intention-based segmentation: Human reliability and correlation with linguistic cues. In Proc. of the 31st ACL, pages 148-155.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Empirical analysis of three dimensions of spoken discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Passonneau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "terdisciplinary Perspectives on Discourse. Springer Verlag",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rebecca J. Passonneau and D. Litman. to appear. Empirical analysis of three dimensions of spoken discourse. In E. Hovy and D. Scott, editors, In- terdisciplinary Perspectives on Discourse. Sprin- ger Verlag, Berlin.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Protocol for coding discourse referential noun phrases and their antecedents",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Passonneau",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rebecca J. Passonneau. 1994. Protocol for coding discourse referential noun phrases and their ante- cedents. Technical report, Columbia University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Interaction of the segmental structure of discourse with explicitness of discourse anaphora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Passonneau",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proc. of the Workshop on Centering Theory in Naturally Occurring Discourse",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rebecca J. Passonneau. to appear. Interaction of the segmental structure of discourse with explicit- ness of discourse anaphora. In E. Prince, A. Joshi, and M. Walker, editors, Proc. of the Workshop on Centering Theory in Naturally Occurring Dis- course. Oxford University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "A formal model of discourse structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Livya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Polanyi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Journal of Pragmaties",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "601--638",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Livya Polanyi. 1988. A formal model of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmaties, pages 601-638.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "C4.5 : Programs for Machine Learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Quinlan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "John K. Quinlan. 1993. C4.5 : Programs for Ma- chine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mates, Calif.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me: Discourse Contezt, Focus, and Semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rachel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reichman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rachel Reichman. 1985. Getting Computers to Talk Like You and Me: Discourse Contezt, Focus, and Semantics. Bradford. MIT, Cambridge.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF33": {
"ref_id": "b33",
"title": "An automatic method of finding topic boundaries",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Reynar",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proc. of the 3$nd ACL (Student Session)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "331--333",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. C. Reynar. 1994. An automatic method of fin- ding topic boundaries. In Proc. of the 3$nd ACL (Student Session), pages 331-333.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF34": {
"ref_id": "b34",
"title": "A discourse analysis approach to structured speech",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lisa",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Stifleman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "AAAI 1995",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lisa J. Stifleman. 1995. A discourse analysis approach to structured speech. In AAAI 1995",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF35": {
"ref_id": "b35",
"title": "Spring Symposium Series: Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "162--167",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Spring Symposium Series: Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation, pages 162-167.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF36": {
"ref_id": "b36",
"title": "Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "107--135",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bonnie L. Webber. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, pages 107-135.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF37": {
"ref_id": "b37",
"title": "Computer systems that learn: classification and prediction methods from statistics, neural nets, machine learning, and expert s~/stems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sholom",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Casimir",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weiss",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kulikowski",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sholom M. Weiss and Casimir Kulikowski. 1991. Computer systems that learn: classification and prediction methods from statistics, neural nets, machine learning, and expert s~/stems. Morgan Kaufmann.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Features and their potential values.",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Example feature coding of a potential boundary site.1. before = '+sentence.final.contour' 2. pause = 'true' 3. And either:(a) cuet = 'true', wordt ~ 'and' (b) cuet = 'true', word1 = 'and', cue2 = 'true', word2 \u00a2 'and'",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Information retrieval metrics.",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Inferential link due to implicit argument. if (coref = -coref and infer = -infer and global.pro = -global.pro) then boundary else|f cue-prosody ----complex then boundary else non-boundary Figure 6: Condition 2 algorithm.",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "varies the number of subjects used to determine boundaries. eThe actual tree branches on every value of worda; the figure merges these branches for clarity. if before = -sentence.final.contour then non.boundary elaeif before = +sentence.final.contour then ifcoref = NA then non-boundary elseif coref = +corer then if after ----. +sentence.final.contour then if duration <__ 1.3 then non-boundary elself duration > 1.3 then boundary elseif after = -sentence.final.contour then if word 1 E {also,basically, because,finally, first,like, meanwhile,no,oh,okay, only, aee,so,well,where,NA} then non-boundary else|f word 1 E {anyway, but,now,or,then} then boundary else|f word I = and then if duration < 0.6 then non-boundary elseifdurat~on > 0.6 then boundary elseif coref = -corer then if infer = +infer then non-boundary elself infer = NA then boundary elseifinfer = -infer then if after = -sentence.final.contour then boundary elself after = +sentence.final.contour then if cue 1 = true then if global.pro = NA then boundary elseif global.pro = -global.pro then boundary elself global.pro = +global.pro then if duration < 0.65 then non-boundary elseifdurat~'on > 0.65 then boundary elseifcue I = false then if duration > 0.5 then non.boundary elselfduration <: 0.5 then if duration < 0.35 then non-boundary eiseifdurat~on > 0.35 then boundary Learned decision tree for segmentation.",
"uris": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"type_str": "table",
"text": "The third feature, global.pro, is computed from the hand coding. FICs are tensed clauses that are neither verb arguments nor restrictive relatives. If a new FIC (C/) begins in prosodic phrase Pi+I, then NPs in Cj are compared with NPs in previous clauses and the feature values assigned as follows4:1. corer = '+coref' if Cj contains an NP that corefers with an NP in Cj-1; else corer= '-cord' 2. infer= '+infer' ifCj contains an NP whose referent can be inferred from an NP in Cj-1 on the basis of a pre-defined set of inference relations; else infer-'-infer' 3. global.pro = '+global.pro' if Cj contains a definite pronoun whose referent is mentioned in a previous clause up to the last boundary assigned by the algorithm; else global.pro = '-global.pro' If a new FIC is not initiated in Pi+I, values for all three features are 'NA'.",
"html": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"num": null
},
"TABREF2": {
"type_str": "table",
"text": ")...Because hei's looking at the girl.[.75] (ZIBRO-PRONOUNi) Falls over,",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>before</td><td>after</td><td>pause</td><td>duration</td><td>cue 1</td><td>word 1</td><td>cue~</td><td>word;~</td><td>coref</td><td>infer</td><td>E;lobal.pro</td><td>cue-prosodic</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">+s.f.c -s.f.c</td><td>true</td><td>.75</td><td>false</td><td>NA</td><td>fM~e</td><td>NA</td><td>+</td><td/><td>+</td><td>true</td></tr></table>",
"num": null
},
"TABREF6": {
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Performance on training set.",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Average</td><td>Recall</td><td>Prec</td><td>Fall</td><td>Error</td><td>SumDev</td></tr><tr><td>Condition 1</td><td>.44</td><td>.29</td><td>.16</td><td>.21</td><td>1.64</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Dev.</td><td>.18</td><td>.17</td><td>.07</td><td>.05</td><td>.32</td></tr><tr><td>Condition 2</td><td>.50</td><td>.44</td><td>.11</td><td>.17</td><td>1.34</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Dev.</td><td>.21</td><td>.06</td><td>.03</td><td>.04</td><td>.29</td></tr></table>",
"num": null
},
"TABREF7": {
"type_str": "table",
"text": "",
"html": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"num": null
},
"TABREF9": {
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Performance on training set.",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Average</td><td>Recall</td><td>Prec</td><td>Fall</td><td>Error</td><td>SumDev</td></tr><tr><td>Learning 1</td><td>.43</td><td>.48</td><td>.08</td><td>.16</td><td>1.34</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Dev.</td><td>.21</td><td>.13</td><td>.03</td><td>.05</td><td>.36</td></tr><tr><td>Learning 2</td><td>.47</td><td>.50</td><td>.09</td><td>.16</td><td>1.27</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Dev.</td><td>.18</td><td>.16</td><td>.04</td><td>.07</td><td>.42</td></tr></table>",
"num": null
},
"TABREF10": {
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Performance on test set.",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Average</td><td>Recall</td><td>Prec</td><td>Fall</td><td>Error</td><td>SumDev</td></tr><tr><td>Learning 1</td><td>.43</td><td>.63</td><td>.05</td><td>.15</td><td>1.14'</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Dev,</td><td>.19</td><td>.16</td><td>.03</td><td>.03</td><td>.24</td></tr><tr><td>Learning 2</td><td>.46</td><td>.61</td><td>.07</td><td>.15</td><td>1.15</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Dev.</td><td>.20</td><td>.14</td><td>.04</td><td>.03</td><td>.21</td></tr></table>",
"num": null
}
}
}
} |