File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.17250/khisli.32.2.201508.007
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84941072003
- WOS: WOS:000410196600007
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Difficulties with computational coreference tracking: How to achieve ‘coherence in mind’ without a mind?
Title | Difficulties with computational coreference tracking: How to achieve ‘coherence in mind’ without a mind? |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Anaphora Co-reference resolution Discourse Narrative Reference |
Issue Date | 2015 |
Citation | Linguistic Research, 2015, v. 32 n. 2, p. 451-468 How to Cite? |
Abstract | The introduction and maintenance of reference in discourse is subject to a number of language-universal constraints on NP form and selection that allow speakers to maintain reference co-referentially (i.e. from mention to mention) with minimal processing effort across large spans of discourse. Automated approaches to co-reference resolution (i.e. the successful tracking of discourse referents across texts) use a variety of models to account for how a referent may be tracked co-referentially, yet automated co-reference resolution is still considered an incredibly difficult task for those working in natural language processing and generation, even when using ‘gold-standard’ manually-annotated discourse texts as a source of comparison. Less research has been conducted on the performance of automated co-reference resolution on narrative data, which is rich with multiple referents interacting with each other, with long sequences of continuous and non-continuous reference to be maintained. Five freely-available co-reference resolvers were trialled for accuracy on oral narrative data produced by English native speakers using a picture sequence as an elicitation device. However, accuracy levels of under 50% for each resolver tested suggest large differences between human and computational methods of co-reference resolution. In particular, zero anaphora, NPs with modifiers and errors in coding first-mentioned referents appear particularly problematic. This suggests that automated approaches to coreference resolution need a vast range of lexical knowledge, inferential capabilities based on situational and world knowledge, and the ability to track reference over extended discourse if they are to succeed in modelling human-like coreference resolution |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/217998 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Crosthwaite, PR | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2015-09-18T06:20:33Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2015-09-18T06:20:33Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Linguistic Research, 2015, v. 32 n. 2, p. 451-468 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/217998 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The introduction and maintenance of reference in discourse is subject to a number of language-universal constraints on NP form and selection that allow speakers to maintain reference co-referentially (i.e. from mention to mention) with minimal processing effort across large spans of discourse. Automated approaches to co-reference resolution (i.e. the successful tracking of discourse referents across texts) use a variety of models to account for how a referent may be tracked co-referentially, yet automated co-reference resolution is still considered an incredibly difficult task for those working in natural language processing and generation, even when using ‘gold-standard’ manually-annotated discourse texts as a source of comparison. Less research has been conducted on the performance of automated co-reference resolution on narrative data, which is rich with multiple referents interacting with each other, with long sequences of continuous and non-continuous reference to be maintained. Five freely-available co-reference resolvers were trialled for accuracy on oral narrative data produced by English native speakers using a picture sequence as an elicitation device. However, accuracy levels of under 50% for each resolver tested suggest large differences between human and computational methods of co-reference resolution. In particular, zero anaphora, NPs with modifiers and errors in coding first-mentioned referents appear particularly problematic. This suggests that automated approaches to coreference resolution need a vast range of lexical knowledge, inferential capabilities based on situational and world knowledge, and the ability to track reference over extended discourse if they are to succeed in modelling human-like coreference resolution | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Linguistic Research | - |
dc.subject | Anaphora | - |
dc.subject | Co-reference resolution | - |
dc.subject | Discourse | - |
dc.subject | Narrative | - |
dc.subject | Reference | - |
dc.title | Difficulties with computational coreference tracking: How to achieve ‘coherence in mind’ without a mind? | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Crosthwaite, PR: drprc80@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Crosthwaite, PR=rp01961 | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_OA_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.17250/khisli.32.2.201508.007 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84941072003 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 253005 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 32 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 451 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 468 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000410196600007 | - |