Advertisement

Questions And Intentions

  • Sanda M. Harabagiu
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 32)

Before a question can be answered by an advanced Question Answering (QA) system, it must be understood at several different levels. First, the complexity of the question needs to be identified based on a combination of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic knowledge. Second, since questions are rarely asked in isolation, the question context needs to be determined for better understanding its request. Third, it is difficult to separate the question intentions from the question formulation, therefore plausible implications need to be coerced from each question. Fourth, mechanisms that either accept or reject the implied intentions are needed. All these different processes impact on the question understanding and implicitly on the accuracy of the returned answers.

Keywords

Question Answering Complex Question Computational Linguistics Semantic Class Biological Weapon 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

7. References

  1. ACE, “Entity Detection and Tracking” - Phase 1; EDT and Metonymy Annotation Guidelines, Version 2.5,2002.Google Scholar
  2. Collin, F. Baker, Charles, J. Fillmore, and John, B. Lowe, “The Berkeley FrameNet Project” in Proceedings of COLING/ACL ‘98:86-90, Montreal, Canada, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. Cosmin, Bejan, Alessandro Moschitti, Paul Morarescu, Gabriel Nicolae and Sanda Harabagiu, “Semantic parsing based on FrameNet”. In Proceedings of Senseval-3: The Third International Workshop on the Evaluation of Systems for the Semantic Analysis of Text, 2004.Google Scholar
  4. Daniel M. Bikel, Richard Schwartz and Ralph M. Weischedel, “An Algorithm that Learns What’s in a Name”, Machine Learning Journal 34, pp. 211-231, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jean Carletta, “Assessing agreement on classification tasks: The kappa statistic”. Computational Linguistics, 22(2): 249-254, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. Sahibsingh, A. Dudani. “The Distance-Weighted k-Nearest-Neighbor Rule”. In IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-6(4): 325-327, 1976.Google Scholar
  7. Christiane Fellbaum, editor, “WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database”, MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. Donghui Feng and Eduard Hovy, “Handling Biographical Questions with Implicature”. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP-2005), pages 596-603, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. Elena Filatova and John Prager, “Tell Me What You Do And I’ll Tell You What You Are: Learning Occupation-Related Activities for Biographies”. In the Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Daniel Gildea and Daniel Jurafsky, “Automatic Labeling of Semantic Roles” in Computa-tional Linguistics, 28(3): 245-288, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniel Gildea and Martha Palmer, “The Necessity of Parsing for Predicate Argument Recognition” in Proceedings of the 40th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2002): 239-246, Philadelphia, PA, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. Roxana Girju, Adriana Badulescu and Dan Moldovan, “Learning Semantic Constraints for the Automatic Discovery of Part-Whole Relations”. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Paul, H. Grice, “Logic and conversation”, in Cole P. and J.L. Morgan (ed.) Academic Press N.Y. editors, Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3: Speech Acts, pages 41-58.Google Scholar
  14. Barbara Grosz and Candance Sidner, “Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse” , Computational Linguistics, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. Sanda Harabagiu, Andrew Hickl, John Lehmann, and Dan Moldovan, “Experiments with Interactive Question-Answering”. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’05), 205-214, 2005.Google Scholar
  16. Sanda Harabagiu, “Incremental Topic Representations”, in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2004), Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.Google Scholar
  17. Sanda Harabagiu, Steven Maiorano, Alessandro Moschitti and Cosmin Bejan, “Intentions, Implicatures and Processing of Complex Questions”, In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2004 Workshop on Pragmatics of Question Answering, Boston, Massachusetts 2004.Google Scholar
  18. Sanda Harabagiu, Dan Moldovan, Christine Clark, Mitchell Bowden, John Williams and Jeremy Bensley, “Answer Mining by Combining Extraction Techniques with Abductive Reasoning”. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC 2003), 2003.Google Scholar
  19. Sanda Harabagiu, Dan Moldovan, Marius Pasca, Rada Mihalcea, Mihai Surdeanu, Razvan Bunsecu, Roxana Girju, Vasile Rus, and Paul Morarescu, “The Role of Lexico-Semantic Feedback in Open-Domain Textual Question-Answering”. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ‘01), 2001.Google Scholar
  20. Sanda Harabagiu, Marius Pasca and Steven Maiorano, “Experiments with Open-Domain Textual Question Answering” in Proceedings of COLING-2000, Saarbruken Germany, pages 292-298, August 2000.Google Scholar
  21. Sanda Harabagiu, George Miller and Dan Moldovan, “WordNet 2 - A Morphologically and Semantically Enhanced Resource,” in Proceedings of SIGLEX-99, pages 1-8, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. Marti Hearst, “TextTiling: Segmenting text into multi-paragraph subtopic passages”. In Computational Linguistics, 23: 33-64, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. Marti Hearst, “Multi-Paragraph Segmentation of Expository Text”. In Proceedings of the 32nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 9-16, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. T. Joachims, “Making large-Scale SVM Learning Practical”. In B. Scholkopf, C. Burges and A. Smola (ed.), MIT-Press., Advances in Kernel Methods - Support Vector Learning, 1999.Google Scholar
  25. Megumi Kameyama, “Recognizing Referential Links: An Information Extraction Perspective”. In Workshop of Operational Factors in Practical, Robust Anaphora Resolution for Unrestricted Texts, (ACL-97/EACL-97), pages 46 -53, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. Lauri Karttunen, “Implicative Verbs”. Language 47, 340-58, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Boris Katz, Matthew Bilotti, Sue Felshin, Aaron Fernandes, Wesley Hildebrandt, Roni Katzir, Jimmy Lin, Daniel Loreto, Gregory Marton, Federico Mora, Ozlem Uzuner, “Answering multiple questions on a topic from heterogeneous resources”. In NIST Special Publication SP 500-261: The Thirteenth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2004), 2004.Google Scholar
  28. Paul Kingsbury, Martha Palmer, and Mitch Marcus, “Adding Semantic Annotation to the Penn TreeBank” in Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference (HLT 2002):252-256, San Diego, California, 2002.Google Scholar
  29. Jon Kleinberg, “Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment”. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 668-677, 1998.Google Scholar
  30. John Lafferty, Fernando Pereira, and Andrew McCallum, “Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data”. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’01), 2001.Google Scholar
  31. Maria Lapata and Alex Lascarides, “A Probabilistic Account of Logical Metonymy”, Computational Linguistics 29:2, 263-317, 2003.Google Scholar
  32. Beth Levin, “English Verb Classes and Alternations a Preliminary Investigation”. University of Chicago Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  33. Stephen, C. Levinson, “Pragmatics”. Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  34. Chin-Yew Lin and Eduard Hovy, “The Automated Acquisition of Topic Signatures for Text Summarization”, in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2000), Saarbrücken, Germany, July 31- August 4, 2000.Google Scholar
  35. Dekang Lin and Patrick Pantel, “Discovery of Inference Rules for Question Answering”, Natural Language Engineering, 7(4): 343-360, 2001.Google Scholar
  36. S. Lytinen and N. Tomuro. “The Use of Question Types to Match Questions in FAQFinder”. In Papers from the 2002 AAAI Spring Symposium on Mining Answers from Texts and Knowledge Bases, pages 46 -53, 2002.Google Scholar
  37. Chris Manning and Hinrich Schütze, “Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing”, MIT Press. Cambridge, MA, 1999.Google Scholar
  38. Gideon S. Mann, David Yarowsky, “Multi-Field Information Extraction and Cross-Document Fusion”, In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ‘05), 483-490, 2005.Google Scholar
  39. Katja Markert and Malvina Nissim, “Metonymy resolution as a classification task”. In Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 204-213, 2002.Google Scholar
  40. Andrew McCallum.“Mallet: A machine learning for language toolkit”. www.cs.umass.edu/∼mccallum/mallet, 2002.
  41. A. Meyers, R. Reeves, C. Macleod, R. Szekely, V. Zielinska, B. Young and R. Grishman, “The NomBank Project: An Interim Report”. In Proceedings of HLT-NAACL 2004 Workshop: Frontiers in Corpus Annotation, 2004.Google Scholar
  42. Dan Moldovan, Marius Pasca, Sanda Harabagiu, and Mihai Surdeanu, “Performance issues and error analysis in an open-domain question answering system”. In ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), Vol. 21, Nr. 2, 133-154, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paul Morarescu and Sanda Harabagiu, “NameNet: a Self-Improving Resource for Name Classification”. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2004), 2004.Google Scholar
  44. Alessandro Moschitti and Cosmin Adrian Bejan, “A Semantic Kernel for Predicate Argument Classification”, In Proceedings of CoNLL-2004, Boston, Massachusetts 2004.Google Scholar
  45. Srini Narayanan and Sanda Harabagiu. “Question Answering Based on Semantic Structures”. In Proceedings of the 20th COLING Conference, 2004.Google Scholar
  46. Marius Pasca and Sanda Harabagiu, “High Performance Question/Answering”. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR-2001), September 2001.Google Scholar
  47. Dragomir, R. Radev, John Prager, and Valerie Samn, “Ranking potential answers to natural language questions” in Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pages 150-157, Seattle, WA, May 2000.Google Scholar
  48. Deepak Ravichandran and Eduard Hovy, “Learning Surface Text Patterns for a Question Answering System”, in Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Associations for Computational Linguistics (ACL-2002), pages 41-47, July 2002.Google Scholar
  49. S. Sekine, K. Sudo, and C. Nobata, “Extended named entity hierarchy”. In Proceedings of LREC 2002.Google Scholar
  50. Rohini Srihari and Wei Li, “A Question Answering System Supported by Information Extraction” in Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pages 166-172, 2000.Google Scholar
  51. David Stallard, “Two kinds of metonymies” in Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL-93, pages 87-94, 1993.Google Scholar
  52. Mihai Surdeanu, Sanda Harabagiu, John Williams, and Paul Aarseth, “Using Predicate-Argument Structures for Information Extraction”. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’03), 2003.Google Scholar
  53. Bonnie Webber, Arvind Joshi, Mathew Stone and Alistair Knott, “Anaphora and Discourse Structure”, Computational Linguistics, 2003.Google Scholar
  54. Ludwig Wittgenstein, “Philosophical Investigations”, Oxford University Press, London, England, 1953.Google Scholar
  55. Jinxi Xu, Ana Licuanan and Ralph Weischedel, “TREC2003 QA at BBN: Answering Definitional Questions”. In NIST Special Publication 500-255: The Twelfth Text Retrieval Conference (TREC 2003), 2003.Google Scholar
  56. Roman Yangarber, “Counter-Training in Discovery of Semantic Patterns”. In Proceedings of the 41th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 343 -350, 2003.Google Scholar
  57. Roman Yangarber, Ralph Grishman, Pasi Tapanainen, and Silja Huttunen, “Automatic Acquisition of Domain Knowledge for Information Extraction”. In Proceedings of the 18th COLING Conference, pages 940-946, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanda M. Harabagiu
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA

Personalised recommendations