Advertisement

Anaphora Resolution

  • Khadiga Mahmoud Seddik
  • Ali Farghaly
Chapter
Part of the Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing book series (NLP)

Abstract

Anaphora Resolution (AR) has attracted the attention of many researchers because of its relevance to Machine Translation, Information Retrieval, Text Summarization and many other applications. AR is a complicated problem in NLP especially in Semitic languages because of their complex morphological structure. Anaphora can be defined as a linguistic relation between two textual entities which is determined when a textual entity (the anaphor) refers to another entity of the text which usually occurs before it (the antecedent). The process of determining the antecedent of an anaphor is referred to as anaphora resolution. In this chapter, we present an account of the anaphora resolution task. The chapter consists of ten sections. The first section is an introduction to the problem. In the second section, we present different types of anaphora. Section 3 discusses the determinants and factors to anaphora resolution and its effect on increasing system performance. In section 4, we discuss the process of anaphora resolution. In section 5 we present different approaches to resolving anaphora and we discuss previous work in the field. Section 6 discusses the recent work in anaphora resolution, and section 7 discusses an important aspect in the anaphora resolution process which is the evaluation of AR systems. In sections 8 and 9, we focus on the anaphora resolution in Semitic languages in particular and the difficulties and challenges facing researchers. Finally, section 10 presents a summary of the chapter.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Coreference Resolution Anaphora Resolution Semitic Language Gender Agreement 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Asher N, Lascarides A (2003) Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bagga A, Baldwin B (1998) Algorithms for scoring coreference chains. In: Proceedings of the linguistic coreference workshop at the first international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’98), Granada, pp 563–566Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldwin B (1997) CogNIAC: high precision coreference with limited knowledge and linguistic resources. Proceedings of the ACL’97/EACL’97 workshop on operational factors in practical, robust anaphora resolution, Madrid, pp 38–45Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldwin B, Morton T, Bagga A, Baldridge J, Chandraseker R, Dimitriadis A, Snyder K, Wolska M (1998) Description of the UPENN CAMP system as used for coreference. In: Proceedings of message understanding conference (MUC-7), FairfaxGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carbonell JG, Brown RD (1998) Anaphora resolution: a multi-strategy approach. In: COLING’88 proceedings of the 12th conference on computational linguistics, Budapest, vol 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 96–101Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carter DM (1986) A shallow processing approach to anaphor resolution. PhD thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carter DM (1987) A shallow processing approach to anaphor resolution. Computer Laboratory, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chomsky N (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris Publications, Dordrecht/CinnaminsonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chomsky N (1986) Knowledge of language: its nature, origin and use. Greenwood Publishing Group, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dagan I, Itai A (1990) Automatic processing of large corpora for the resolution of anaphora references. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING’90), Helsinki, vol 3, pp 1–3Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dagan I, Itai A (1991) A statistical filter for resolving pronoun peferences. In: YA Feldman, A Bruckstein (eds) Artificial intelligence and computer vision. Elsevier, Burlington, pp 125–135Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doddington G, Mitchell A, Przybocki M, Ramshaw L, Strassel S, Weischedel R (2004) The automatic content extraction (ace) program tasks, data, and evaluation. In: NIST, Lisbon, pp. 837–840Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Farghaly A (1981) Topic in the syntax of Egyptian Arabic. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, AustinGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farghaly A (2010) Arabic computational linguistics. CSLI Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Information, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farghaly A, Shaalan Kh (2009) Arabic natural language processing: challenges and solutions. ACM Trans Asian Lang Inf Process 8(4):1–22. Article 14Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grishman R, Sundheim B (1996) Message understanding conference – 6: a brief history. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING), Kopenhagen, vol I, pp 466–471Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hammami S, Belguith L, Ben Hamadou A (2009) Arabic anaphora resolution: corpora annotation with coreferential links. Int Arab J Inf Technol 6:480–488Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hobbs JR (1976) Pronoun resolution. Research report. Department of Computer Science, University of New York, New York, pp 76–1Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hobbs JR (1978) Resolving pronoun references. Lingua 44:339–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kameyama M (1997) Recognizing referential links: an information extraction perspective. In: Proceedings of the ACL’97/EACL’97 workshop on operational factors in practical, robust anaphora resolution, Madrid, pp 46–53Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kennedy Ch, Boguraev B (1996) Anaphora for everyone: pronominal anaphora resolution without a parser. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING’96), Copenhagen, pp 113–118Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lappin Sh, Leass H (1994) An algorithm for pronominal anaphora resolution. Comput Linguist 20(4):535–561Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luo X (2005) On coreference resolution performance metrics. In: Proceedings of the conference on human language technology and empirical methods in natural language processing (HLT’05), Vancouver. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 25–32. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1220579
  24. 24.
    Luo X, Ittycheriah A, Jing H, Kambhatla N, Roukos S (2004) A mention synchronous coreference resolution algorithm based on the bell tree. In: Proceedings of ACL’04, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mitkov R (1994) An integrated model for anaphora resolution. In: Proceedings of the 15th conference on computational linguistics (COLING’94), Stroudsburg, vol 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1170–1176Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mitkov R (1995) An uncertainty reasoning approach for anaphora resolution. In: Proceedings of the natural language processing pacific rim symposium (NLPRS’95), Seoul, pp 149–154Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mitkov R (1996) Anaphora resolution: a combination of linguistic and statistical approaches. In: Proceedings of the discourse anaphora and anaphor resolution (DAARC’96), LancasterGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mitkov R (1997) Factors in anaphora resolution: they are not the only things that matter. A case study based on two different approaches. In: Proceedings of the ACL’97/EACL’97 workshop on operational factors in practical, robust anaphora resolution, Madrid, pp 14–21Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mitkov R (1998a) Evaluating anaphora resolution approaches. In: Proceedings of the discourse anaphora and anaphora resolution colloquium (DAARC’2), LancasterGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mitkov R (1998b) Robust pronoun resolution with limited knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING’98)/ACL’98 conference, Montreal, pp 869–875Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mitkov R (1999) Anaphora resolution: the state of the art. Technical report based on COLING’98 and ACL’98 tutorial on anaphora resolution, School of Languages and European Studies, University of WolverhamptonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mitkov R, Belguith L, Stys M (1998) Multilingual robust anaphora resolution. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP-3), Granada, pp 7–16Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mitkov R, Lappin S, Boguraev B (2001) Introduction to the special issue on computational anaphora resolution. MIT, Cambridge, pp 473–477Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nasukawa T (1994) Robust method of pronoun resolution using full-text information. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING’94), Kyoto, pp 1157–1163Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ng V (2003) Machine learning for coreference resolution: recent successes and future challenges. Technical report cul.cis/tr2003-1918, Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ng V, Cardie C (2002) Improving machine learning approaches to coreference resolution. In: Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL), Philadelphia, pp 104–111Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    NIST (2003a) The ACE evaluation plan. www.nist.gov/speech/tests/ace/index.htm
  38. 38.
    NIST (2003b) Proceedings of ACE’03 workshop, Adelaide. Booklet, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rand WM (1971) Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. J Am Stat Assoc 66(336):846–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Recasens M, Hovy EH (2010) BLANC: implementing the rand index for coreference evaluation. Nat Lang Eng 17:485–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rich E, LuperFoy S (1988) An architecture for anaphora resolution. In: Proceedings of the second conference on applied natural language processing (ANLP-2), Austin, pp 18–24Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Seddik MK, Farghaly A, Fahmy A (2011) Arabic anaphora resolution in Holy Qur’an text. In: Proceedings of ALTIC 2011 conference on Arabic language technology, Alexandria, pp 21–28Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sidner CL (1979) Towards a computational theory of definite anaphora comprehension in English discourse. Technical report No. 537. MIT, Artificial Intelligence LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Soon W, Ng H, Lim D (2001) A machine learning approach to coreference resolution of noun phrases. Comput Linguist 27(4):521–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vilain M et al (1995) A model-theoretic coreference scoring scheme. In: Proceedings of the sixth message understanding conference (MUC-6), Columbia, pp 45–52Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Williams S, Harvey M, Preston K (1996) Rule-based reference resolution for unrestricted text using part-of-speech tagging and noun phrase parsing. In: Proceedings of the international colloquium on discourse anaphora and anaphora resolution (DAARC), Lancaster, pp 441–456Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yang X, Zhou G, Su J, Tan CL (2003) Coreference resolution using competition learning approach. In: ACL’03: proceedings of the 41st annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 176–183Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yang X, Su J, Tan CL (2008) A twin-candidate model for learning-based anaphora resolution. Comput Linguist 34(3):327–356. Iida, RGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zitouni I, Sorensen J, Luo X, Florian R (2005) The impact of morphological stemming on Arabic mention detection and coreference resolution. In: Proceedings of the ACL workshop on computational approaches to Semitic languages, 43rd annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics (ACL2005), Ann Arbor, pp 63–70Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zitouni I, Luo X, Florian R (2010) A statistical model for Arabic mention detection and chaining. In: Farghaly A (ed) Arabic computational linguistics. CSLI Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, pp 199–236Google Scholar

Further Reading

  1. 1.
    Asher N, Lascarides A (2003) Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bengtson E, Roth D (2008) Understanding the value of features for coreference resolution. In: Proceedings of the 2008 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, Honolulu, pp 294–303Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boguraev B, Christopher K (1997) Salience-based content characterisation of documents. In: Proceedings of the ACL’97/EACL’97 workshop on intelligent scalable text summarisation, Madrid, pp 3–9Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cai J, Strube M (2010) End-to-end coreference resolution via hypergraph partitioning. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computational linguistics, Beijing, 23–27 Aug 2010, pp 143–151Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen B, Su J, Tan CL (2010) A twin-candidate based approach for event pronoun resolution using composite Kernel. In: Proceedings of the COLING 2010, Beijing, pp 188–196Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diab M, Hacioglu K, Jurafsky D (2004) Automatic tagging of Arabic text: from raw text to base phrase chunks. In: Dumas S, Marcus D, Roukos S (eds) HLT-NAACL 2004: short papers. Association for Computational Linguistics, Boston, pp 140–152Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elghamry K, El-Zeiny N, Al-Sabbagh R (2007) Arabic anaphora resolution using the web as corpus. In: Proceedings of the 7th conference of language engineering, the Egyptian society of language engineering, Cairo, pp 294–318Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gasperin C (2009) Statistical anaphora resolution in biomedical texts. Technical report, Computer Laboratory, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ng V (2010) Supervised noun phrase coreference research: the first fifteen years. In: Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, Uppsala, pp 1396–1411Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Noklestad A (2009) A machine learning approach to anaphora resolution including named entity recognition, PP attachment disambiguation, and animacy detection. PhD, Faculty of Humanities, The University of Oslo, Norway, p 298Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Recasens M, Mart T, Taul M, Marquez L, Sapena E (2010) SemEval-2010 task 1: coreference resolution in multiple languages. In: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT workshop on semantic evaluations: recent achievements and future directions, Los Angeles, pp 70–75Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wintner S (2004) Hebrew computational linguistics: past and future. Artif Intell Rev 21(2):113–138CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhao Sh, Ng HT (2010) Maximum metric score training for coreference resolution. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computational linguistics (COLING’10), Stroudsburg, pp 1308–1316Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Computers and InformationCairo UniversityGizaEgypt
  2. 2.Computational Linguistics Software ResearcherNetworked InsightsChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations