Graduate studies at Western
Cognitive Science 36 (5):799-836 (2011)
|Abstract||A substantial amount of recent work in natural language generation has focused on the generation of ‘‘one-shot’’ referring expressions whose only aim is to identify a target referent. Dale and Reiter's Incremental Algorithm (IA) is often thought to be the best algorithm for maximizing the similarity to referring expressions produced by people. We test this hypothesis by eliciting referring expressions from human subjects and computing the similarity between the expressions elicited and the ones generated by algorithms. It turns out that the success of the IA depends substantially on the ‘‘preference order’’ (PO) employed by the IA, particularly in complex domains. While some POs cause the IA to produce referring expressions that are very similar to expressions produced by human subjects, others cause the IA to perform worse than its main competitors; moreover, it turns out to be difficult to predict the success of a PO on the basis of existing psycholinguistic findings or frequencies in corpora. We also examine the computational complexity of the algorithms in question and argue that there are no compelling reasons for preferring the IA over some of its main competitors on these grounds. We conclude that future research on the generation of referring expressions should explore alternatives to the IA, focusing on algorithms, inspired by the Greedy Algorithm, which do not work with a fixed PO|
|Keywords||Incremental algorithm Generation/production of referring expression Reference Evaluation metrics for generation algorithms Psycholinguistics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Markus Guhe (2012). Utility-Based Generation of Referring Expressions. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (2):306-329.
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):423-443.
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.
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.
Kees van Deemter, Albert Gatt, Ielka van der Sluis & Richard Power (2012). Assessing the Incremental Algorithm: A Response to Krahmer Et Al. Cognitive Science 36 (5):842-845.
Kees van Deemter (2009). Utility and Language Generation: The Case of Vagueness. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (6):607-632.
Kees van Deemter, Albert Gatt, Roger P. G. van Gompel & Emiel Krahmer (2012). Toward a Computational Psycholinguistics of Reference Production. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (2):166-183.
Martijn Goudbeek & Emiel Krahmer (2012). Alignment in Interactive Reference Production: Content Planning, Modifier Ordering, and Referential Overspecification. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (2):269-289.
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.
Richard Heck (2002). Do Demonstratives Have Senses? Philosophers' Imprint 2 (2):1-33.
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.
Anne Bezuidenhout (2006). The Coherence of Contextualism. Mind and Language 21 (1):1–10.
Added to index2011-11-01
Total downloads8 ( #131,771 of 739,325 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?