Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2005 / Comparing Knowledge Sources for Nominal Anaphora Resolution

Comparing Knowledge Sources for Nominal Anaphora Resolution

Summary

Markert and Nissim study where lexical knowledge for resolving full-noun anaphors should come from. They focus on antecedent selection for two phenomena: other-anaphora (e.g., "other repercussions" pointing back to "costs") and coreference of definite NPs introduced by "the". They compare two approaches. One follows hyponymy and synonymy links in the hand-built hierarchy WordNet 1.7.1. The other counts how often shallow lexico-syntactic patterns occur in a corpus, either the BNC or the Web. The Web had not been used for this task before. The patterns are queried at resolution time instead of being used to build a fixed ontology. Data come from WSJ (Penn Treebank) texts, among others. WordNet turns out to miss many needed links, especially for subjective or context-dependent relations, and this gap is worse for other-anaphora. The Web method beats WordNet on other-anaphora and roughly matches it on definite NP coreference, while doing better on some subsets. The BNC method lags behind because of data sparseness. The approach is cheap and needs no hand-modelled knowledge, so it suits languages that have large corpora but lack taxonomies.

Key points

  • Three knowledge sources are compared for antecedent selection: WordNet 1.7.1, pattern frequencies from the BNC, and pattern frequencies from the Web.
  • For other-anaphora, the Web-based algorithm outperforms the WordNet-based one. For definite NP coreference, the two are comparable overall, but the Web method adds more beyond the string-matching baseline (StrSet v2n).
  • The BNC-based method is the weakest in both case studies. Corpus size mattered more than corpus cleanliness.
  • The paper cites earlier evidence of WordNet's knowledge gap. Harabagiu et al. (2001) attributed over 30% of missed coreference links to missing semantic information. Strube et al. (2002) reported an F-measure of 33.9% for definite NPs versus 82.8% for pronouns.
  • In related work (Modjeska, Markert, and Nissim 2003), adding a Web-score feature to a naive Bayes other-anaphora resolver gave an 11.4-point gain over a WordNet-based feature.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Topics: Coreference resolution

Cited by

19 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 8 of them have a page here, 11 not yet.

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.1162/089120105774321064

@article{markert2005comparing,
  title = {{Comparing Knowledge Sources for Nominal Anaphora Resolution}},
  author = {Markert, Katja and Nissim, Malvina},
  journal = {Computational Linguistics},
  year = {2005},
  doi = {10.1162/089120105774321064},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1162/089120105774321064}
}

References

49 references, 14 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. Routledge, London and New York. find
  2. Berland, Matthew and Eugene Charniak. 1999. Finding parts in very large corpora. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 57– 64, Providence, RI. find
  3. Bierner, Gann. 2001. Alternative phrases and natural language information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 58– 65, Toulouse, France. find
  4. Burnard, Lou, 1995. Users’ Reference Guide, British National Corpus. British National Corpus Consortium, Oxford. find
  5. Caraballo, Sharon. 1999. Automatic acquisition of a hypernym-labelled noun hierarchy from text. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 120–126, Providence, RI. find
  6. Chinchor, Nancy. 1997. MUC-7 named entity task definition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Message Understanding, Washington, DC. find
  7. Christ, Oliver, 1995. The XKWIC User Manual. Institute for Computational Linguistics, University of Stuttgart. find
  8. Clark, Herbert H. 1975. Bridging. In Proceedings of the Conference on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, pages 169–174, Cambridge, MA. find
  9. Connolly, Dennis, John D. Burger, and David S. Day. 1997. A machine learning approach to anaphoric reference. In Daniel Jones and Harold Somers, editors, New Methods in Language Processing. University College London Press, London, pages 133–144. find
  10. Curran, James and Stephen Clark. 2003. Language independent NER using a maximum entropy tagger. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLLO3), pages 164–167, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. find
  11. Fellbaum, Christiane, editor. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. find
  12. Fraurud, Kari. 1990. Definiteness and the processing of NPs in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics, 7:395–433. find
  13. Gardent, Claire, Helene Manuelian, and Eric Kow. 2003. Which bridges for bridging definite descriptions? In Proceedings of the EACL 2003 Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora, pages 69–76, Budapest. find our card
  14. Grefenstette, Gregory. 1999. The WWW as a resource for example-based MT tasks. In Proceedings of ASLIB’99: Translating and the Computer 21, London. find
  15. Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2):274–307. find
  16. Hahn, Udo, Michael Strube, and Katja Markert. 1996. Bridging textual ellipses. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 496–501, Copenhagen. find our card
  17. Halliday, Michael A. K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. Longman, London. find
  18. Harabagiu, Sanda. 1997. WordNet-Based Inference of Textual Context, Cohesion and Coherence. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern California. find
  19. Harabagiu, Sanda, Razvan Bunescu, and Steven J. Maiorano. 2001. Text and knowledge mining for coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the Second Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL, pages 55–62, Pittsburgh. find
  20. Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness. Croom Helm, London. find
  21. Hearst, Marti. 1992. Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Nantes, France. find
  22. Hirschman, Lynette and Nancy Chinchor. 1997. MUC-7 coreference task definition. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Message Understanding, Washington, DC. find our card
  23. Humphreys, Kevin, Robert Gaizauskas, Saliha Azzam, Chris Huyck, Brian Mitchell, and Hamish Cunningham. 1997. University of Sheffield: Description of the LaSie-II system as used for MUC-7. In Proceedings of the Seventh Message Understanding Conference (MUC-7), Washington, DC. find
  24. Kameyama, Megumi. 1997. Recognizing referential links: An information extraction perspective. In Proceedings of the ACL-1997 Workshop on Operational Factors in Practical, Robust Anaphora Resolution for Unrestricted Texts, pages 46–53, Madrid. find
  25. Keller, Frank and Maria Lapata. 2003. Using the Web to obtain frequencies for unseen bigrams. Computational Linguistics, 29(3):459–484. find
  26. Kennedy, Christopher and Branimir Boguraev. 1996. Anaphora for everyone: Pronominal anaphora resolution without a parser. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 113–118, Copenhagen. find our card
  27. Markert, Katja, Malvina Nissim, and Natalia N. Modjeska. 2003. Using the Web for nominal anaphora resolution. In Robert Dale, Kees van Deemter, and Ruslan Mitkov, editors, Proceedings of the EACL Workshop on the Computational Treatment of Anaphora, pages 39–46, Budapest. find
  28. McCoy, Kathleen and Michael Strube. 1999. Generating anaphoric expressions: Pronoun or definite description? In ACL-99 Workshop on the Relation of Discourse/ Dialogue Structure and Reference, pages 63–71, College Park, MD. find our card
  29. Meyer, Ingrid. 2001. Extracting knowledge-rich contexts for terminography. In Didier Bourigault, Christian Jacquemin, and Marie-Claude L’Homme, editors, Recent Advances in Computational Terminology. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pages 279–301. find
  30. Meyer, Josef and Robert Dale. 2002. Mining a corpus to support associative anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution, Lisbon. find
  31. Mitkov, Ruslan. 1998. Robust pronoun resolution with limited knowledge. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 869–879, Montreal. find our card
  32. Modjeska, Natalia N. 2002. Lexical and grammatical role constraints in resolving other-anaphora. In Proceedings of DAARC 2002, pages 129–134, Lisbon. find
  33. Modjeska, Natalia N. 2003. Resolving other-anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh. find
  34. Modjeska, Natalia N., Katja Markert, and Malvina Nissim. 2003. Using the Web in machine learning for other-anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 176–183, Sapporo, Japan. find our card
  35. Ng, Vincent. 2004. Learning noun phrase anaphoricity to improve coreference resolution: Issues in representation and optimization. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 151–158, Barcelona. find
  36. Ng, Vincent and Claire Cardie. 2002a. Identifying anaphoric and non-anaphoric noun phrases to improve coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 730–736, Taipei. find
  37. Ng, Vincent and Claire Cardie. 2002b. Improving machine learning approaches to coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 104–111, Philadelphia. find our card
  38. Poesio, Massimo, Tomonori Ishikawa, Sabine Schulte im Walde, and Renata Vieira. 2002. Acquiring lexical knowledge for anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 1220–1224, Las Palmas, Canary Islands. find our card
  39. Poesio, Massimo, Rahul Mehta, Axel Maroudas, and Janet Hitzeman. 2004. Learning to resolve bridging references. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 143–150, Barcelona. find our card
  40. Poesio, Massimo, Renata Vieira, and Simone Teufel. 1997. Resolving bridging references in unrestricted text. In Ruslan Mitkov, editor, Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Operational Factors in Robust Anaphora Resolution, pages 1–6, Madrid. find our card
  41. Preiss, Judita. 2002. Anaphora resolution with word sense disambiguation. In Proceedings of SENSEVAL-2, pages 143–146, Philadelphia. find
  42. Preiss, Judita, Caroline Gasperin, and Ted Briscoe. 2004. Can anaphoric definite descriptions be replaced by pronouns? In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 1499–1502, Lisbon. find
  43. Shinzato, Keiji and Kentaro Torisawa. 2004. Acquiring hyponymy relations from Web documents. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL, pages 73–80, Boston. find
  44. Soon, Wee Meng, Hwee Tou Ng Ng, and Daniel Chung Yung Lim. 2001. A machine learning approach to coreference resolution of noun phrases. Computational Linguistics, 27(4):521–544. find our card
  45. Strube, Michael, Stefan Rapp, and Christoph Mueller. 2002. The influence of minimum edit distance on reference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 312–319, Philadelphia. find
  46. Uryupina, Olga. 2003. High-precision identification of discourse new and unique noun phrases. In Proceedings of the ACL 2003 Student Workshop, pages 80–86, Sapporo, Japan. van Deemter, Kees and Rodger Kibble. 2000. On coreferring: Coreference in MUC and related annotation schemes. Computational Ling… find
  47. Vieira, Renata and Massimo Poesio. 2000. An empirically-based system for processing definite descriptions. Computational Linguistics, 26(4):539–593. find
  48. Webber, Bonnie, Matthew Stone, Aravind Joshi, and Alistair Knott. 2003. Anaphora and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 29(4):545–587. find our card
  49. Yang, Xiaofeng, Guodong Zhou, Jian Su, and Chew Lim Tan. 2003. Coreference resolution using competition learning approach. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 176–183, Sapporo, Japan. find our card

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/markert-2005-comparing-knowledge-sources-nominal-anaphora/