Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2018 / BASHI: A Corpus of Wall Street Journal Articles Annotated with Bridging Links

BASHI: A Corpus of Wall Street Journal Articles Annotated with Bridging Links

Summary

Bridging resolution means linking an anaphoric noun phrase to a related but non-identical antecedent, as when "the bride" depends on an earlier "wedding". Progress on this task is slow because annotated training data is scarce, and existing corpora define bridging inconsistently, which makes them hard to merge. Rösiger addresses this by releasing BASHI (bridging anaphors hand-annotated inventory). It contains 50 Wall Street Journal articles that already carry OntoNotes gold annotations, with bridging anaphors and their antecedents added on top.

The paper surveys earlier definitions of bridging and argues for a broad scheme that does not overlap with coreference. It also introduces a split between referential bridging, where the anaphor truly needs an antecedent to be interpreted, and lexical bridging, which covers plain semantic relations between words such as meronymy. BASHI annotates only referential cases. It labels bridging subtypes, for example definite versus indefinite anaphors, so the corpus can be combined with resources such as ISNotes. The result is a compatible building block toward the larger bridging datasets that statistical models need.

Key points

  • Size and source: BASHI has 57,709 tokens and 459 bridging pairs drawn from 50 WSJ articles in OntoNotes. Articles already in ISNotes were excluded, as were multi-story overview articles.
  • Formats: The corpus is distributed in an offset-based format and as a CoNLL-12 style bridging column that merges with the other OntoNotes annotation layers.
  • Annotation scope:
    • Anaphors must be nominal.
    • Antecedents may be nominal, verbal or clausal.
    • Rhetorical or connection cases are left out.
    • Coreference, including near-identity, is kept separate from bridging.
  • Comparison corpora:
    • ISNotes has 633 pairs.
    • GUM has about 64,000 tokens.
    • ARRAU, the data for the first bridging shared task, has 5,512 pairs, but most of them are lexical rather than referential.
    • OntoNotes coreference has roughly 35,000 pairs, which shows how small bridging resources are by comparison.
  • Motivation: Bridging links can support coherence modelling (entity grids, text segmentation), textual entailment and summarisation.

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

28 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 11 of them have a page here, 17 not yet.

Cite

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

@inproceedings{rosiger2018bashi,
  title = {{BASHI: A Corpus of Wall Street Journal Articles Annotated with Bridging Links}},
  author = {Rösiger, Ina},
  booktitle = {Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018)},
  year = {2018},
  doi = {10.63317/4zt9i5mar6pv},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.63317/4zt9i5mar6pv}
}

References

33 references, 13 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Asher, N. and Lascarides, A. (1998). Bridging. Journal of Semantics, 15(1):83–113. find
  2. Barzilay, R. and Lapata, M. (2008). Modeling local coherence: An entity-based approach. Computational Linguistics, 34(1):1–34. find our card
  3. Baumann, S. and Riester, A. (2012). Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. Prosody and meaning, 25:119–162. find
  4. Cahill, A. and Riester, A. (2012). Automatically acquiring fine-grained information status distinctions in German. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 232– 236. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
  5. Clark, H. H. (1975). Bridging. In Proceedings of the 1975 workshop on Theoretical issues in natural language processing, pages 169–174. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
  6. Fang, Y. and Teufel, S. (2014). A summariser based on human memory limitations and lexical competition. In Proceedings of the EACL. Association for Computational Linguistics. (to appear). find
  7. Fraurud, K. (1990). Definiteness and the processing of noun phrases in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics, 7(4):395–433. find
  8. Grishina, Y. (2016). Experiments on bridging across languages and genres. In CORBON@ HLT-NAACL, pages 7–15. find our card
  9. Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. atlantic highlands. find
  10. Hearst, M. A. (1994). Multi-paragraph segmentation of expository text. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 9–16. find
  11. Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M. E., Appelt, D. E., and Martin, P. (1993). Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 63:69–142. find
  12. Hou, Y., Markert, K., and Strube, M. (2013a). Cascading collective classification for bridging anaphora recognition using a rich linguistic feature set. In EMNLP, pages 814–820. find our card
  13. Hou, Y., Markert, K., and Strube, M. (2013b). Global inference for bridging anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, pages 907–917. find our card
  14. Hou, Y. (2016). Unrestricted Bridging Resolution. Ph.D. thesis. find our card
  15. Kaplan, D., Iida, R., Nishina, K., and Tokunaga, T. (2012). Slate – a tool for creating and maintaining annotated corpora. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics, pages 89–101. find
  16. Kintsch, W. and van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5):363–394. find
  17. Lassalle, E. and Denis, P. (2011). Leveraging different meronym discovery methods for bridging resolution in french. Anaphora Processing and Applications, pages 35–46. Löbner, S. (1998). Definite associative anaphora. manuscript) http://user.phil-fak. uniduesseldorf. de/˜ loebner/publ/DAA-03. pdf. ↗
  18. Markert, K., Hou, Y., and Strube, M. (2012). Collective classification for fine-grained information status. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers-Volume 1, pages 795–804. Association for Computational Linguistics. Mirkin, S., Dagan, I… find our card
  19. Nissim, M., Dingare, S., Carletta, J., and Steedman, M. (2004). An annotation scheme for information status in dialogue. find
  20. LREC 2004. Poesio, M. and Artstein, R. (2008). Anaphoric Annotation in the ARRAU Corpus. In International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Marrakech, Morocco, May. find
  21. Poesio, M. and Vieira, R. (1998). A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational linguistics, 24(2):183–216. find
  22. Poesio, M., Vieira, R., and Teufel, S. (1997). Resolving bridging references in unrestricted text. In Proceedings of a Workshop on Operational Factors in Practical, Robust Anaphora Resolution for Unrestricted Texts, pages 1–6. Association for Computational Linguistics. find our card
  23. Poesio, M., Mehta, R., Maroudas, A., and Hitzeman, J. (2004). Learning to resolve bridging references. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, page 143. Association for Computational Linguistics. find our card
  24. Recasens, M. and Hovy, E. (2010). A typology of near-identity relations for coreference (nident). In LREC. find our card
  25. Recasens, M., Marti, M. A., and Orasan, C. (2012). Annotating near-identity from coreference disagreements. In LREC, pages 165–172. find our card
  26. Riester, A. and Baumann, S. (2017). The reflex scheme-annotation guidelines. find
  27. Roitberg, A. and Nedoluzhko, A. (2016). Bridging corpus for russian in comparison with czech. In CORBON@ HLT-NAACL, pages 59–66. find our card
  28. Rösiger, I. (2016). Scicorp: A corpus of english scientific articles annotated for information status analysis. In LREC. find our card
  29. Shwartz, V. and Dagan, I. (2016). Path-based vs. distributional information in recognizing lexical semantic relations. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon (CogALex - V), pages 24–29. find
  30. The COLING 2016 Organizing Committee. find
  31. Vieira, R. and Teufel, S. (1997). Towards resolution of bridging descriptions. In Proceedings of the eighth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 522–524. Association for Computational Linguistics. find our card
  32. Weischedel, R., Pradhan, S., Ramshaw, L., Palmer, M., Xue, N., Marcus, M., Taylor, A., Greenberg, C., Hovy, E., Belvin, R., et al. (2011). Ontonotes release 4.0. LDC2011T03, Philadelphia, Penn.: Linguistic Data Consortium. find
  33. Zeldes, A. (2017). The gum corpus: creating multilayer resources in the classroom. Language Resources and Evaluation, 51(3):581–612, Sep. Zikánová, Š., Hajicová, E., Hladká, B., Jı́nová, P., Mı́rovskỳ, J., Nedoluzhko, A., Poláková, L., Rysová, K., Rysová, M., and Václ, J. (2015). Discour… find

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/papers/rosiger-2018-bashi-corpus-wall-street-journal/