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 | ||
mckeown_abstract [2012/10/07 15:17] mirovsky |
mckeown_abstract [2012/11/08 13:52] ufal |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
In language generation, discourse structure relations often play a prescriptive role in determining what to say next. If content has already been selected, that content in conjunction with discourse structure can be used to constrain what gets said next. PDTB relations have been empirically determined through analysis of text and there has been an effort to limit the range of relations. One natural question is whether PDTB relations should serve the same role as RST in generating of text or whether there is a difference in how they could be applied. | In language generation, discourse structure relations often play a prescriptive role in determining what to say next. If content has already been selected, that content in conjunction with discourse structure can be used to constrain what gets said next. PDTB relations have been empirically determined through analysis of text and there has been an effort to limit the range of relations. One natural question is whether PDTB relations should serve the same role as RST in generating of text or whether there is a difference in how they could be applied. | ||
- | Regina Barzilay, “Probabilistic Approaches for Modeling Text Structure and Their Application to Text-to-Text Generation” | + | Regina Barzilay. 2010. Probabilistic Approaches for Modeling Text Structure and Their Application to Text-to-Text Generation. In Emiel Krahmer and Mariet Theune, editors, Empirical Methods in Natural Language Generation: Data-oriented Methods and Empirical Evaluation, Springer, 2010. |
- | Regina Barzilay, Mirella Lapata, "Collective Content Selection for Concept-To-Text Generation", In Proc. of EMNLP, 2005. | + | Regina Barzilay |
- | Eduard Hovy, “Planning coherent multisentential text”, Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, | + | Eduard Hovy. 1988. Planning coherent multisentential text. In Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, |
- | Annie Louis and Ani Nenkova, “A coherence model based on syntactic patterns”, Proceedings of EMNLP-CoNLL, | + | Annie Louis and Ani Nenkova. 2012. A coherence model based on syntactic patterns. In Proceedings of EMNLP-CoNLL, |
- | Bill Mann, “Discourse structures for text generation”, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 22nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, | + | Bill Mann. 1984. Discourse structures for text generation. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 22nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, |
- | McKeown, K.R., Text Generation: Using Discourse Strategies and Focus Constraints to Generate Natural Language Text.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1985. | + | McKeown, K.R. 1985. Text Generation: Using Discourse Strategies and Focus Constraints to Generate Natural Language Text. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1985. |
+ | |||
+ | Johanna Moore and Cecile Paris. 1993. Planning text for advisory dialogues: capturing intentional and rhetorical information. In Journal Computational Linguistics, | ||
- | Johanna Moore and Cecile Paris, “Planning text for advisory dialogues: capturing intentional and rhetorical information, | ||