Possessive Noun Phrases In the case where an entity or event mention involves a possessive (such as “[EN person] [EN ’s face]”or “[EN face] of [EN person]”), we may not correctly identify the complete mention. This can be problematic when dropping or extracting the mention. The entity or event mention chunking should probably be changed, but the entity co-reference system will probably want to form co-reference
chains out of both mentions.
X or Y Noun Phrases As was mentioned in subsection A.3.6, when generating reduction rules to split up an “X or Y” case, we end up mixing chunk boundaries from both entity mentions. While this does not appear to cause any problems and is theoretically the correct thing to do, there is a worry that it may be causing undetected errors. Ideally, the X or Y cases should be combined into a single mention, and the entity co-reference system modified to handle mentions that have two possible types.
X and Y Noun Phrases Similar to the previous case, an “X and Y” case where X and Y are of the same type should be treated as a single chunk. However, the entity co-reference system needs a way to deal with groups and individual elements of groups, before turning “X and Y” into a single chunk.
Prepositional Phrases The template for generating prepositional phrase dropping string reductions is fairly bulky. Because it was developed over a fairly long period of time, some of the cases may have been deprecated by improved normalizations.
Second, the induced nesting that occurs when a prepositional phrase string is preceded by another chunk allows prepositions to interact with the subject and verb split reduction rules. However, it is potentially dan- gerous, in terms of changing the internals of EN and VP chunks. So far, no errors due to it have been detected. However, it would probably be preferable to nest the prepositional phrase strings during pre-processing, as- suming this is possible. This will cause a lot of problems for the existing string reduction scripts, and will be a fairly major effort.
References
Artstein, R. and Poesio, M. (2008). Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics, 34(4), 555–596.
Barwise, J. and Perry, J. (1980). Situations and attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 668–691.
BNC Consortium (2007). The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML edition). http://www. natcorp.ox.ac.uk.
Carlson, G. (2005). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, chapter Generics, Habituals and Itera- tives. Elsevier, 2nd edition.
Chklovski, T. and Pantel, P. (2004). Verbocean: Mining the web for fine-grained semantic verb relations. In D. Lin and D. Wu, editors, Proceedings of EMNLP 2004, pages 33–40, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Church, K. W. and Hanks, P. (1990). Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Com- putational Linguistics, 16(1), 22–29.
Clarke, D. (2009). Context-theoretic semantics for natural language: an overview. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Geometrical Models of Natural Language Semantics, pages 112–119, Athens, Greece. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measure- ment, 20(1), 37–46.
Dagan, I., Glickman, O., and Magnini, B. (2006). The PASCAL Recognising Textual Entailment challenge. In Machine Learning Challenges, volume 3944 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 177–190. Springer.
de Marneffe, M.-C., MacCartney, B., and Manning, C. D. (2006). Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure trees. In LREC.
Dowty, D., Wall, R., and Peters, S. (1981). Introduction to Montague Semantics. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Farhadi, A., Hejrati, M., Sadeghi, M. A., Young, P., Rashtchian, C., Hockenmaier, J., and Forsyth, D. (2010). Every picture tells a story: Generating sentences from images. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), Part IV, pages 15–29, Heraklion, Greece.
Feng, Y. and Lapata, M. (2008). Automatic image annotation using auxiliary text information. In Pro- ceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-08: HLT), pages 272–280, Columbus, OH, USA.
Feng, Y. and Lapata, M. (2010). How many words is a picture worth? automatic caption generation for news images. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 1239–1249, Uppsala, Sweden.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In D. Davidson and G. H. Harman, editors, The Logic of Grammar, pages 64–75. Dickenson Publishing Co., Encino, CA, USA.
Grubinger, M., Clough, P., M¨uller, H., and Deselaers, T. (2006). The IAPR benchmark: A new evalua- tion resource for visual information systems. In OntoImage 2006, Workshop on Language Resources for Content-based Image Retrieval during LREC 2006, pages 13–23, Genoa, Italy.
Gupta, A., Verma, Y., and Jawahar, C. (2012). Choosing linguistics over vision to describe images. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Hodosh, M., Young, P., Rashtchian, C., and Hockenmaier, J. (2010). Cross-caption coreference resolution for
automatic image understanding. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 162–171, Uppsala, Sweden.
Hodosh, M., Young, P., and Hockenmaier, J. (2013). Framing image description as a ranking task: Data, models and evaluation metrics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 47, 853–899.
Kotlerman, L., Dagan, I., Szpektor, I., and Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M. (2010). Directional distributional similar- ity for lexical inference. Natural Language Engineering, 16(4), 359–389.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
Kulkarni, G., Premraj, V., Dhar, S., Li, S., Choi, Y., Berg, A. C., and Berg, T. L. (2011). Baby talk: Un- derstanding and generating simple image descriptions. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1601–1608.
Kuznetsova, P., Ordonez, V., Berg, A., Berg, T., and Choi, Y. (2012). Collective generation of natural image descriptions. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 359–368, Jeju Island, Korea.
Li, S., Kulkarni, G., Berg, T. L., Berg, A. C., and Choi, Y. (2011). Composing simple image descriptions using web-scale n-grams. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pages 220–228, Portland, OR, USA.
Lin, C.-Y. (2004). Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In S. S. Marie-Francine Moens, editor, Text Summarization Branches Out: Proceedings of the ACL-04 Workshop, pages 74–81, Barcelona, Spain.
Lin, D. (1998). An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pages 296–304, Madison, WI, USA.
McCallum, A. K. (2002). Mallet: A machine learning for language toolkit. http://www.cs.umass.edu/ mccal- lum/mallet.
Mitchell, J. and Lapata, M. (2010). Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science, 34(8), 1388–1429.
Mitchell, M., Dodge, J., Goyal, A., Yamaguchi, K., Stratos, K., Han, X., Mensch, A., Berg, A., Berg, T., and Daume III, H. (2012). Midge: Generating image descriptions from computer vision detections. In Pro- ceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), pages 747–756, Avignon, France.
Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy: papers of Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New Haven. Edited by Richmond H. Thomason.
Ordonez, V., Kulkarni, G., and Berg, T. L. (2011). Im2text: Describing images using 1 million captioned photographs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24, pages 1143–1151.
Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., and Zhu, W.-J. (2002). Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of ma- chine translation. In Proceedings of 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 311–318, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Parker, R., Graff, D., Kong, J., Chen, K., and Maeda, K. (2011). English Gigaword Fifth Edition. Linguistic Data Consortium.
Porter, M. F. (1980). An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 14(3), 130–137.
Reiter, E. and Belz, A. (2009). An investigation into the validity of some metrics for automatically evaluating natural language generation systems. Computational Linguistics, 35(4), 529–558.
Szpektor, I. and Dagan, I. (2008). Learning entailment rules for unary templates. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008), pages 849–856, Manchester, UK. Coling 2008 Organizing Committee.
Vilain, M., Burger, J., Aberdeen, J., Connolly, D., and Hirschman, L. (1995). A model-theoretic coreference scoring scheme. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Message understanding, MUC6 ’95, pages 45–52, Stroudsburg, PA, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Weeds, J. and Weir, D. (2003). A general framework for distributional similarity. In M. Collins and M. Steed- man, editors, Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 81–88.
Yang, Y., Teo, C., Daume III, H., and Aloimonos, Y. (2011). Corpus-guided sentence generation of natural images. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 444–454, Edinburgh, UK.
Young, P., Hodosh, M., Lai, A., and Hockenmaier, J. (to appear). From image descriptions to visual de- notations: New similarity metrics for semantic inference over event descriptions. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics.