discourse structure and anaphoric accessibility
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Discourse Structure and Anaphoric Accessibility

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 19

Discourse Structure and Anaphoric Accessibility - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 151 Views
  • Uploaded on

Discourse Structure and Anaphoric Accessibility. Massimo Poesio and Barbara Di Eugenio with help from Gerard Keohane. Content. Empirical Investigations of Discourse Structure Grosz and Sidner’s theory of the Global Focus Relational Discourse Analysis How we used RDA to study G&S

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Discourse Structure and Anaphoric Accessibility' - shalin


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
discourse structure and anaphoric accessibility

Discourse Structure and Anaphoric Accessibility

Massimo Poesio and Barbara Di Eugenio

with help from Gerard Keohane

content
Content
  • Empirical Investigations of Discourse Structure
  • Grosz and Sidner’s theory of the Global Focus
  • Relational Discourse Analysis
  • How we used RDA to study G&S
  • Results
  • Discussion

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

empirical investigations of discourse structure a new opportunity
Empirical Investigations of Discourse Structure: A new opportunity
  • Original proposals concerning effect of discourse structure on accessibility (Reichman, 1985; Fox, 1987; Grosz and Sidner, 1986) based on unsystematic analysis of data
  • These days we know more about reliable studies of discourse phenomena (Passonneau and Litman, 1993; Carletta et al, 1997)
  • These new resources already used to propose new theories of anaphora and discourse structure such as Veins Theory (Cristea, Ide, Marcu, et al, 1998, 1999, 2000)
  • The goal of this project: use a reliably annotated corpus (the Sherlock corpus from the University of Pittsburgh, Moser and Moore, 1996; Di Eugenio et al, 1997) to study claims of G&S

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

grosz and sidner s theory of the global focus
Grosz and Sidner’s Theory of the Global Focus
  • The structure of a discourse is determined by the intentions utterances are meant to convey (DISCOURSE SEGMENT PURPOSES)
    • INTENTIONAL STRUCTURE: DOMINANCE and SAT-PRECEDES relations between DSPs
  • ATTENTIONAL STRUCTURE: a stack of FOCUS SPACES
    • Focus spaces on the stack contain accessible discourse entities
    • Presence on the stack reflects intentional structure
  • The problem: how to identify DSPs in a discourse

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

relational discourse analysis rda
Relational Discourse Analysis (RDA)
  • Moore and Pollack, 1992; Moser and Moore, 1996
  • Combines ideas from RST and Grosz and Sidner’s theory
  • From Grosz and Sidner: discourse structure is determined by intentional structure
    • RDA-SEGMENT: a segment expressing an intentional relation
  • From RST: segments have internal structure
    • CORE (cfr. NUCLEUS)
    • CONTRIBUTOR (cfr. SATELLITE)
  • Both INTENTIONAL and INFORMATIONAL relations
  • A fixed number of intentional relations
  • Has been proven to be usable for reliable analysis

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

rda analysis of an excerpt from a tutorial
RDA Analysis of an excerpt from a tutorial
  • 1.1 Before troubleshooting inside the text station,
  • 1.2 It’s always best to eliminate both the UUT and the TP
  • 2.1 Since the test package is moved frequently
  • 2.2 It is prone to damage
  • 3.1 Also, testing the test package is much easier and faster
  • 3.2 than opening up test station drawers.

CONVINCE

CONVINCE

ENABLE

Prescribed-act:

Wrong-act

Cause:effect

step1:step2

1.1

1.2

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

moser and moore mapping between rst relations and g s
Moser and Moore: mapping between RST relations and G&S
  • Basic principles:
    • Every DSP must be associated with a core
    • Constituents of the RDA structure that do not include cores – such as clusters – do not introduce DSPs
  • Consequences for attentional state:
    • A new focus space only pushed when a segment is open
    • Information relations do not affect the attentional state

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

mapping rda into attentional state
Mapping RDA into Attentional State
  • 1.1 Before troubleshooting inside the text station,
  • 1.2 It’s always best to eliminate both the UUT and the TP
  • 2.1 Since the test package is moved frequently
  • 2.2 It is prone to damage
  • 3.1 Also, testing the test package is much easier and faster
  • 3.2 than opening up test station drawers.

DSP1

CONVINCE

CONVINCE

DSP 2

ENABLE

Prescribed-act:

Wrong-act

Cause:effect

step1:step2

1.1

1.2

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

using an rda annotated corpus to study anaphoric accessibility
Using an RDA-annotated corpus to study anaphoric accessibility
  • The data: the SHERLOCK corpus, already annotated according to RDA instructions (Moser, 1996)
  • Added anaphoric annotation according to GNOME instructions (Poesio, 2000) derived from MATE scheme (Poesio Bruneseaux and Romary, 1999)
  • Use RDA analysis to drive focus space construction
  • Measure:
    • Accessibility
    • Perplexity

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

the data the sherlock corpus
The Data: the SHERLOCK corpus
  • 17 tutorial dialogues collected within the Sherlock project (Lesgold et al, 1992)
    • Students solve electronic troubleshooting problem
    • 313 turns, 1333 clauses
  • RDA annotation: Moser and Moore, 1996
    • Reliability verified at different levels
    • Intentional relations: CONCEDE, CONVINCE, ENABLE, JOINT

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

an example of sherlock dialogue
An example of Sherlock dialogue
  • STUDENT:
  • 1.1 Why isn\'t measurement signal path green during good test
  • readings (steps)?
  • TUTOR:
  • 2.1 For each step that passed,
  • 2.2 you know the measurement path is good.
  • 2.3 You also know that one of the measurement paths is bad.
  • 2.4 Showing the UUT, Test Package, and measurement section as
  • unknown is correct
  • 2.5 because, you know when you get your fail that
  • something was wrong,
  • 2.6 but you didn\'t know exactly what.
  • 2.7 The DMM is green
  • 2.8 because it has been working all along.
  • 2.9 The stimulus section is green
  • 2.10 because it was not used
  • 2.11 and is assumed to be good.

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

anaphoric annotation
Anaphoric Annotation
  • The GNOME scheme (Poesio, 2000)
    • Mark up all NPs as NE element, with a variety of attributes
      • About 3000 NEs
    • Use separate ANTE element to mark up anaphoric relations (including bridges)
    • In this annotation: only direct anaphoric relations
      • (About 1500 total)

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

evaluation
Evaluation
  • A PERL script simulates focus space construction and computes accessibility and perplexity
  • Accessibility: whether antecedent is in focus stack
  • Perplexity: Sum 1/d(xi ) m(xi) (where m(xi) = 1 if xi matches anaphor, 0 otherwise)
  • Parameters for focus space construction:
    • PUSHING:
      • Whenever relation is encountered (either informational or intentional)
      • Only when intentional
    • POPPING:
      • As soon as associated constituent is completed
      • Immediate popping of contributors, delayed popping of cores
      • Delayed popping of contributors

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

evaluation i intentional vs informational
Evaluation I: Intentional vs Informational

Accessibility:

Perplexity: All = 0.83, Intentional = 1.23

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

complications
Complications

ENABLE

  • 24.13a Since S52 puts a return (0 VDC) on it’s outputs
  • 24.13b when they are active,
  • 24.14 the inactive state must be some other voltage.
  • 24.15 So even though you may not know what the “other” voltage is,
  • 24.16 You can test to ensure that
  • 24.17a the active pins are 0 VDC
  • 24.17b and all the inactive pins are not 0 VDC.

DSP 1

CONCEDE

ENABLE

24.14

24.15

24.16

Effect:cause

24.13a

24.13b

Contrast1: contrast2

24.17a

24.17b

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

complications16
Complications

ENABLE

  • 24.13a Since S52 puts a return (0 VDC) on it’s outputs
  • 24.13b when they are active,
  • 24.14 the inactive state must be some other voltage.
  • 24.15 So even though you may not know what the “other” voltage is,
  • 24.16 You can test to ensure that
  • 24.17a the active pins are 0 VDC
  • 24.17b and all the inactive pins are not 0 VDC.

DSP 1

CONCEDE

ENABLE

24.14

24.15

24.16

Effect:cause

24.13a

24.13b

Contrast1: contrast2

24.17a

24.17b

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

evaluation ii delayed popping
Evaluation II: Delayed Popping

Accessibility

Average perplexity with immediate popping: 1.23

Delayed popping of cores: 1.3

Delayed popping of contributors: 1.33

Perplexity

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

discussion
Discussion
  • Accessibility:
    • Intentional vs. informational distinction makes sense
      • Cfr. Fox
    • Want to keep contributors as well as cores on stack
      • cfr. Veins Theory
  • An evaluation of Grosz and Sidner’s framework:
    • The most direct implementation makes quite a few discourse entities unaccessible
    • Difficult to interpret more complex operations in terms of intentional structure
  • Alternative: a cache model (cfr. Guindon 1985, Walker 1996, 1998)
    • Version 1 (conservative): cache of focus spaces
    • Version 2: cache of forward looking centers

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

cache based global focus a conservative proposal
Cache-based global focus: a conservative proposal
  • Cache elements are FOCUS SPACES
  • Cache elements are RANKED:

Current focus space < other constituents of same segment < dominating segments < focus spaces of contributors to closed spaces(Cfr. Reichman 85)

  • Search algorithm: follow ranking
  • Cache replacement algorithm:
    • Opening RDA segment: open new focus space, replace lowest-ranked element of cache, assign it highest rank
    • Closing RDA segment: Assign lowest rank to embedded contributors

Information Structure and Discourse Structure

ad