Utility-Based Generation of Referring Expressions
Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (2):306-329 (2012)
| Abstract | This paper presents two cognitive models that simulate the production of referring expressions in the iMAP task—a task-oriented dialog. One general model is based on Dale and Reiter’s (1995)incremental algorithm, and the other is a simple template model that has a higher correlation with the data but is specifically geared toward the properties of the iMAP task. The property of the iMAP task environment that is modeled here is that the color feature is unreliable for identifying referents while other features are reliable. The low computational cost of the incremental algorithm for generating referring expressions makes it an interesting starting point for a cognitive model. However, its explanatory power is limited, because it generates uniquely distinguishing referring expressions and because it considers features for inclusion in the referring expression in a fixed order. The first model extends the original incremental algorithm by an ability to adapt to feedback of whether a referring expression was used successfully, but it seems to overpredict the frequency with which distinguishing expressions are made and underpredict the frequency of overspecified referring expressions. The second model produces features for referring expressions purely based on its current estimate of a feature’s utility. Both models predict the observed human behavior of decreasing use of color terms and increasing use of useful feature terms | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesKees van Deemter, Albert Gatt, Ielka van der Sluis & Richard Power (2011). Generation of Referring Expressions: Assessing the Incremental Algorithm. Cognitive Science 36 (5):799-836.
Albert Gatt & Kees van Deemter (2007). Lexical Choice and Conceptual Perspective in the Generation of Plural Referring Expressions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (4).
Imtiaz H. Khan, Kees van Deemter & Graeme Ritchie (2011). Managing Ambiguity in Reference Generation: The Role of Surface Structure. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (2):211-231.
Daphna Heller, Kristen S. Gorman & Michael K. Tanenhaus (2012). To Name or to Describe: Shared Knowledge Affects Referential Form. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (2):290-305.
Emiel Krahmer, Ruud Koolen & Mariët Theune (2012). Is It That Difficult to Find a Good Preference Order for the Incremental Algorithm? Cognitive Science 36 (5):837-841.
Petra Hendriks, Christina Englert, Ellis Wubs & John Hoeks (2008). Age Differences in Adults' Use of Referring Expressions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17 (4).
Kumiko Fukumura & Roger P. G. van Gompel (2012). Producing Pronouns and Definite Noun Phrases: Do Speakers Use the Addressee's Discourse Model? Cognitive Science 36 (7):1289-1311.
Hilla Jacobson-Horowitz (2004). Syntax, Semantics, and Intentional Aspects. Philosophical Papers 33 (1):67-95.
Arthur Sullivan (2009). Against Structured Referring Expressions. Philosophical Studies 146 (1):49 - 74.
Richard Heck (2002). Do Demonstratives Have Senses? Philosophers' Imprint 2 (2):1-33.
Roger Wertheimer (1999). Quotation Apposition. Philosophical Quarterly 50 (197):514-519.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2012-04-12Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
