| { | |
| "paper_id": "W93-0233", | |
| "header": { | |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", | |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T04:42:28.673916Z" | |
| }, | |
| "title": "Summarising as a lever for studying large-scale discourse structure", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "Ka", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Ren", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "Computer Labora.tory", | |
| "institution": "University of Cambridg(' New Museums Site", | |
| "location": { | |
| "postCode": "CB2 3Q(I", | |
| "settlement": "Pembroke Street, Cambridge", | |
| "region": "IlK" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Sparck", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Jones", | |
| "suffix": "", | |
| "affiliation": { | |
| "laboratory": "Computer Labora.tory", | |
| "institution": "University of Cambridg(' New Museums Site", | |
| "location": { | |
| "postCode": "CB2 3Q(I", | |
| "settlement": "Pembroke Street, Cambridge", | |
| "region": "IlK" | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "email": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": "", | |
| "venue": null, | |
| "identifiers": {}, | |
| "abstract": "", | |
| "pdf_parse": { | |
| "paper_id": "W93-0233", | |
| "_pdf_hash": "", | |
| "abstract": [], | |
| "body_text": [ | |
| { | |
| "text": "We are using summarising as a way of studying large-scale discours\u00a2~ structure. Much computationally-orieuted work on disconrse structure ha.s been concerned with dialogue, rather than with 'single-source' text.. Some prop()sals haw. been made for singh~-soul'ce text e.g. l~hetorical Structure Theory (Mann ;rod Tholnpsoll 1987), I)nt al'~' open to criticism (e.g. Moore and I)olla(:k 1.q92); and single-source work has been primarily concerned with generation ((,.g. McK~,own 1985 , Maybury 1991 . We believc that large-scale discourse stru('tm'[~ ha.s a crucial part to play in SUlnmarising and therefore needs to be captured in the source text representation, for use in snmmarising, regardless of its contril)ution to source interpretation itself.", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 462, | |
| "end": 482, | |
| "text": "((,.g. McK~,own 1985", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "start": 483, | |
| "end": 497, | |
| "text": ", Maybury 1991", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We have been engaged in a systematic examination of Mternative types of large-scale text structure, designed to throw light on the kinds of inlbrma.tion they make available for the text above the level of individual sentence rel)r~'sentations, and how these call be used in sumlnarising. Thus source, text interpretation will provide a source representation capturing discourse structur(\" over sentences, to be exploited in a condensing transformation through which the summary representation is formed, in turn leading to the output smmnary text.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "This is a deliberately analytical investigation, taking a broa.d view without preconceptions. We distinguish three types of discourse information with structural implications: linguistic, dolnain, and Colmnunicativ(~, and a.r(' s,~eing what large-scale text. structures these respectively give. Thus we at'(' inv(~stigating representation types categorised as dealing with informatioll either about the linguistic properties of the source text (e.g. parallelisln), or about its domain content (e.g. class lnelnbership), or abont its COlmnunicative fimction (e.g. counterclaim). We are fill'ther, for any of these types, corlsidering two alternative forms of structnl'e that we have labelled 'bottom-up' and 'top-down' respectively. Bottom-up structures are individually created using g(,n('ra.I ruh's (e.g. by inference from domain facts); top-down structures are obtained by illstantiating prior proformas (e.g. using domain frames). This is not a processing distinction, and the same formal structure (e.g. hierarchical) may result ill either case; there may also be intermediate possibilities of the 'grammar' type. These distinctions of information type and representation form are broad ones that we are using as heuristics to explore discourse structure. Our aim is a com-paratiw~ one, to see what each kind of approach leads to both for representation and for summarising. We can then consider how the structures relate to one another, whether as dependent, complementary, or reinforcing ones.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We are as far as possible using 'exemplar' approaches taken from previous research in the field, primarily in order to ground our work in what has been done so far: we are obliged in the current state of the art to work prirnarily through simulation, but we are trying to constrain the resea.rch by folk)wing approaches already proposed in the literature and preferably computatioually investigated. Thus as an experimental strategy we are taking logical t'oH,ls with resolved anaphors as a baseline representation for sentences, a.nd th(.n applying exemplar strategies of each type to these to obtain ['ull rel)resentati(,ns of the source text.. These full representations capture further relations ~('ross the sentences, embodying the large scale source text structure.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "We have obtained alternative discourse structures and summaries for a set. of short test texts. Some of the source structures are very simple, others more complex, importing significant additional information. So far, we have used the source representations in natural ways to obtain summaries: thus a linguistictype source representation leads to a linguistically-motivated summary representation, in a way appropriate to the kind of the linguistic representation.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "As linguistic structures we have so far provided analyses and derived summaries from the most simple approach, exploiting focus history to pick out key discourse entities, to more elaborate ones provided by Rs'r (taking rhetorical relations as linguistic). These are bottom-up forms: rhetorical schemata might suggest a complementary top-down approach, but we could not readily analyse our texts as instantiations of these, and we therefore tried an intermediate 'story (or text) grammar' approach (cf Rumelhart 1975) To obtain domainbased structures we have used an extremely simple bottom-u I) al)proach using predication participation to identify discourse entities which figure largely in the source: we\" would like, to try more sophisticated strategies where the bas('lin~' representation is enriched using general inference rules. We have applied scripts (and frames) as a top-down representation form (cf DeJong 1979; Tait 1983).", | |
| "cite_spans": [ | |
| { | |
| "start": 470, | |
| "end": 517, | |
| "text": "(or text) grammar' approach (cf Rumelhart 1975)", | |
| "ref_id": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Finally, for communicative structure we have used Grosz and Sidner (1986)'s approach to get intentional representations for our test texts. This constitutes a bottom-up approach: we have not yet identified an exemplar top-down one.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "The results we haaze obtained have provided stinmlat.ing insights into the properties and roles of different types of text structure, and into the respect.iv(, contributions they may make to summarising. For summarisiug, all the largescale structures provide good leverage and help to identify source material which is intuitively important for use in the condensed summary, through selection or generalisation, though the alternative results for the same text may differ noticeably and individual results may be only senti-satisfactory. The results also illustrate the genuine role, but incomplete contribution, of each type of information.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "text": "Our deliherate separation of information types with their application strategies is thus allowing us to examine each type; to see how large-scale structure of any one kind is related to local structure, for instance through focus; and to formulate a view of a discourse model as a whole which subsumes distinct contributing models with their own necessary functions. Thus for example for one text, 'Biographies', there is a linguistic structure showing heavy presentational parallelism, a simple sequence of persuasive communicatiw-\" intentions, and a separate domain object categorisation. There are complex rela.tions Iwtween these, with reinforcing effects on the indication of key cont~'nt. Our comparative analyses are thus providing the base (Grosz and Sparck Jones, in preparation), for the development of an account of discourse structure, or a discourse model, as a higher-level structure over subsidiary structures each with their own character and role.", | |
| "cite_spans": [], | |
| "ref_spans": [], | |
| "eq_spans": [], | |
| "section": "", | |
| "sec_num": null | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "back_matter": [], | |
| "bib_entries": { | |
| "BIBREF0": { | |
| "ref_id": "b0", | |
| "title": "Shallow processing and autmatic summarising: a first study", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "P", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Gladwin", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "S", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Pulman", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| }, | |
| { | |
| "first": "Sparck", | |
| "middle": [], | |
| "last": "Jones", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1991, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "223", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "P. Gladwin, S. Pulman and K. Sparck Jones 'Shallow processing and aut- matic summarising: a first study', TR 223, Computer Laboratory, Uniw~rsity of Cambridge, 1991.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF1": { | |
| "ref_id": "b1", | |
| "title": "Discourse modelling for automatic sunamarising', '1'1:~ 290", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "Sparck" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Jones", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "K. Sparck Jones 'Discourse modelling for automatic sunamarising', '1'1:~ 290, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 1993, and ill press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| }, | |
| "BIBREF2": { | |
| "ref_id": "b2", | |
| "title": "What might be in a smmnary?", | |
| "authors": [ | |
| { | |
| "first": "K", | |
| "middle": [ | |
| "Sparck" | |
| ], | |
| "last": "Jones", | |
| "suffix": "" | |
| } | |
| ], | |
| "year": 1993, | |
| "venue": "Proceedings of the\" (;erma.n hfformation Retrieval Conference", | |
| "volume": "", | |
| "issue": "", | |
| "pages": "", | |
| "other_ids": {}, | |
| "num": null, | |
| "urls": [], | |
| "raw_text": "K. Sparck Jones 'What might be in a smmnary?', Proceedings of the\" (;erma.n hfformation Retrieval Conference, 1993, in press.", | |
| "links": null | |
| } | |
| }, | |
| "ref_entries": {} | |
| } | |
| } |