Advertisement

Comparing Discourse Tree Structures

  • Elena Mitocariu
  • Daniel Alexandru Anechitei
  • Dan Cristea
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7816)

Abstract

The existing discourse parsing systems make use of different theories to put at the basis of processes of building discourse trees. Many of them use Recall, Precision and F-measure to compare discourse tree structures. These measures can be used only on topologically identical structures. However, there are known cases when two different tree structures of the same text can express the same discourse interpretation, or something very similar. In these cases Precision, Recall and F-measures are not so conclusive. In this paper, we propose three new scores for comparing discourse trees. These scores take into consideration more and more constraints. As basic elements of building the discourse structure we use those embraced by two discourse theories: Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) and Veins Theory, both using binary trees augmented with nuclearity notation. We will ignore the second notation used in RST – the name of relations. The first score takes into account the coverage of inner nodes. The second score complements the first score with the nuclearity of the relation. The third score computes Precisions, Recall and F-measures on the vein expressions of the elementary discourse units. We show that these measures reveal comparable scores there where the differences in structure are not doubled by differences in interpretation.

Keywords

discourse parser Rhetorical Structure Theory Veins Theory evaluation discourse tree structure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Roark, B., Harper, M., Charniak, E., Dorr, B., Johnson, M., Kahne, J.G., Liuf, Y., Ostendorf, M., Hale, J., Krasnyanskaya, A., Lease, M., Shafran, I., Snover, M., Stewart, R., Yung, L.: SParseval: Evaluation metrics for parsing speech. In: Proceedings of LREC (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marcu., D.: The theory and Practice of Discourse Parsing and Summarization. MIT press (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soricut, R., Marcu, D.: Sentence Level Discourse Parsing using Syntactic and Lexical Information. In: Proceedings of the Human Language Technology and North American Association for Computational Linguistics Conference, Edmonton, pp. 149–156 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hernault, H., Prendinger, H., duVerle, D., Ishizuka, M.: HILDA: A Discourse Parser Using Support Vector Machine Classification. Dialogue and Discourse, pp. 1–33 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reitter, D.: Simple signals for complex rhetorics: On rhetorical analysis with rich-features support vector models. LDV-Forum. GLDV-Journal for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology, 38–52 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldridge, J., Lascarides, A.: Probabilistic head-driven parsing for discourse structure. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 96–103 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mann, W.C., Thompson, S.A.: Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 243–281 (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taboada, M., Mann, W.C.: Rhetorical Structure Theory: looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies, 423–459 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cristea, D., Ide, N., Romary, L.: Veins theory: A model of global discourse cohesion and coherence. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Montreal, pp. 281–285 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, T.: Catalan Numbers, http://www.geometer.org/mathcircles

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Mitocariu
    • 1
  • Daniel Alexandru Anechitei
    • 1
  • Dan Cristea
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science“Al.I.Cuza” University of IasiIasiRomania
  2. 2.Institute for Computer ScienceRomanian AcademyIasiRomania

Personalised recommendations