Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
diskurz_doporucena_literatura [2012/02/08 15:44] ufal |
diskurz_doporucena_literatura [2012/03/12 08:30] hladka |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Sem si můžeme psát odkazy na články (především) o diskurzu, které nás zaujaly a které doporučujeme k přečtení i ostatním, např. takto: | Sem si můžeme psát odkazy na články (především) o diskurzu, které nás zaujaly a které doporučujeme k přečtení i ostatním, např. takto: | ||
+ | * Rodger Kibble, Richard Power. 2004. Optimizing referential coherence in text generation. // | ||
+ | This article describes an implemented system which uses centering theory for planning of coherent | ||
+ | texts and choice of referring expressions. We argue that text and sentence planning need to be | ||
+ | driven in part by the goal of maintaining referential continuity and thereby facilitating pronoun | ||
+ | resolution: Obtaining a favorable ordering of clauses, and of arguments within clauses, is likely | ||
+ | to increase opportunities for nonambiguous pronoun use. Centering theory provides the basis for | ||
+ | such an integrated approach. Generating coherent texts according to centering theory is treated | ||
+ | as a constraint satisfaction problem. The well-known Rule 2 of centering theory is reformulated in | ||
+ | terms of a set of constraints—cohesion, | ||
+ | outputs obtained under a particular weighting of these constraints. This framework facilitates | ||
+ | detailed research into evaluation metrics and will therefore provide a productive research tool in | ||
+ | addition to the immediate practical benefit of improving the fluency and readability of generated | ||
+ | texts. The technique is generally applicable to natural language generation systems, which perform | ||
+ | hierarchical text structuring based on a theory of coherence relations with certain additional | ||
+ | assumptions. | ||
- | Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber. 2008. //The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0.// Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008) | + | |
- | [[http:// | + | *Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, Bonnie Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In // |
- | Abstract | + | **Abstract** |
We present the second version of the Penn Discourse Treebank, PDTB-2.0, describing its lexically-grounded annotations of discourse | We present the second version of the Penn Discourse Treebank, PDTB-2.0, describing its lexically-grounded annotations of discourse | ||
relations and their two abstract object arguments over the 1 million word Wall Street Journal corpus. We describe all aspects of the | relations and their two abstract object arguments over the 1 million word Wall Street Journal corpus. We describe all aspects of the |