Mova0.5 pre-release⌕
☰
home / docs / papers / English / Scoring Coreference Chains with Split-Antecedent Anaphors

Scoring Coreference Chains with Split-Antecedent Anaphors

What it is about

Standard coreference scorers (MUC, B3, CEAF, LEA, BLANC) assume that every anaphor refers to one entity, so they cannot score split-antecedent references such as "they" for "John" and "Mary" in "John met Mary. They went to the movies", or discourse deixis to an event. The paper extends each metric. An entity can be an accommodated set of two or more existing entities plus a chain of mentions. The set is built recursively, so that a set whose members are sets is flattened to atomic entities. Cardinality of a complex entity is one plus the size of its mention chain. Because the metrics need a one-to-one matching between key and response entities, the authors align accommodated sets with the same metric used for scoring (its F1 for the pair), using the Kuhn-Munkres algorithm, which is the alignment CEAF already uses. A δ term compares accommodated sets, or links that involve them, in each metric. The generalized B3, MUC, CEAF and LEA are defined and computed on an illustrative example. The abstract states that the proposal was used to score split-antecedent plurals and discourse deixis in the CODI/CRAC dialogue shared tasks. The abstract gives no numbers; the paper's worked examples are the evidence.

Ideas

For Mova

Code: coref/src/eval.rs (metric definitions and alignment), coref/src/sieve.rs (output of split-antecedent links, if the sieve is to produce them), coref/src/corefud.rs (annotations of split antecedents in CoNLL-U). Chapters: 11. Nouns (plural reference), 35. Reference and coreference, 38. Dialogue, discourse markers and reported speech (discourse deixis). Measure: the generalized scores on the paper's example, then on a small split-antecedent set, run twice; a negative control with the set members swapped should score the same.

Topics: Coreference resolution

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5210/dad.2023.201 · arXiv 2205.12323

@inproceedings{paun2023scoring,
  title = {{Scoring Coreference Chains with Split-Antecedent Anaphors}},
  author = {Paun, Silviu and Yu, Juntao and Moosavi, Nafise Sadat and Poesio, Massimo},
  booktitle = {Dialogue \& Discourse},
  year = {2023},
  doi = {10.5210/dad.2023.201},
  eprint = {2205.12323},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5210/dad.2023.201}
}

References

90 references, 19 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Ron Artstein and Massimo Poesio. Identifying reference to abstract objects in dialogue. In BRAN-DIAL 2006: Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SemDial-10), Potsdam, 2006. find
  2. Nicholas Asher. Reference to Abstract Objects in English. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1993. find
  3. Amit Bagga and Breck Baldwin. Algorithms for scoring coreference chains. In Workshop on Linguistics Coreference at the First International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), volume 1, pages 563–566. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1998. find our card
  4. Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. METEOR: An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization, pages 65– 72, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2005. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/W05-0909. ↗ our card
  5. David Beaver and Henk Zeevat. Accommodation. In G. Ramchand and C. Reiss, editors, The Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, pages 503–536. Oxford, 2007. find
  6. Ezra Black, Steve Abney, Dan Flickinger, C. Gdaniec, Ralph Grishman, Paul Harrison, Don Hindle, Rob Ingria, Fred Jelinek, Judith Klavans, Mark Liberman, Mitch Marcus, S. Roukos, Beatrice Santorini, and Tomek Strzalkowski. A procedure for quantitatively comparing the syntactic coverage of english grammars. In Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Pacific Grove, California, February 19-22, 1991. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1991. URL https://aclanthology.org/H91-1060. ↗
  7. Donna K. Byron. Resolving pronominal reference to abstract entities. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 80–87, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2002. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/1073083. 1073099. URL https://aclanthology.org/P02-1011. ↗
  8. David M. Carter. Interpreting Anaphors in Natural Language Texts. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK, 1987. find
  9. Nancy A. Chinchor and Beth Sundheim. Message Understanding Conference (MUC) tests of discourse processing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Empirical Methods in Discourse Interpretation and Generation, pages 21–26, Stanford, 1995. find
  10. Herbert H. Clark. Bridging. In Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing, 1975. find
  11. Kevin Clark and Christopher D. Manning. Improving coreference resolution by learning entity-level distributed representations. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 643–653, Berlin, Germany, 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P16-1061. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P16-1061. ↗
  12. Francis Cornish. Discourse anaphora. In Keith Brown, editor, Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, pages 631–638. Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 2006. find
  13. Pascal Denis and Jason Baldridge. Joint determination of anaphoricity and coreference resolution using integer programming. In Human Language Technologies 2007: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Proceedings of the Main Conference, pages 236–243, Rochester, New York, 2007. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/N07-1030. ↗
  14. Carola Eschenbach, Christopher Habel, Michael Herweg, and Klaus Rehkämper. Remarks on plural anaphora. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 161–167. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1989. find
  15. Biaoyan Fang, Christian Druckenbrodt, Saber A Akhondi, Jiayuan He, Timothy Baldwin, and Karin Verspoor. ChEMU-Ref: A corpus for modeling anaphora resolution in the chemical domain. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), page 1362–1375. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.116. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2021.eacl-main.116. ↗
  16. Biaoyan Fang, Timothy Baldwin, and Karin Verspoor. What does it take to bake a cake? the RecipeRef corpus and anaphora resolution in procedural text. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, page 3481–3495. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.275. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2022.findings-acl.275. ↗
  17. Alan Garnham. Mental models and the interpretation of anaphora. Psychology Press, 2001. find
  18. Jeanette K. Gundel and Barbara Abbott, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford University Press, 2019. find
  19. Jeanette K. Gundel, Michael Hegarty, and Kaja Borthen. Cognitive status, information structure, and pronominal reference to clausally introduced entities. Journal of Logic Language and Information, 12(3):281–299, 2003. find
  20. Yufang Hou. Bridging anaphora resolution as question answering. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1428–1438, Online, 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.132. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.acl-main.132. ↗ our card
  21. Yufang Hou, Katja Markert, and Michael Strube. Unrestricted bridging resolution. Computational Linguistics, 44(2):237–284, 2018. find our card
  22. Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Yinhan Liu, Daniel S. Weld, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Omer Levy. SpanBERT: Improving pre-training by representing and predicting spans. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:64–77, 2020. doi: 10.1162/tacl a 00300. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.tacl-1.5. ↗
  23. Tuomo Kakkonen. Framework and Resources for Natural Language Parsing Evaluation. PhD thesis, University of Joensuu, 2007. find
  24. Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1993. find
  25. Ben Kantor and Amir Globerson. Coreference resolution with entity equalization. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 673–677, Florence, Italy, 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P19-1066. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P19-1066. ↗
  26. Sopan Khosla, Juntao Yu, Ramesh Manuvinakurike, Vincent Ng, Massimo Poesio, Michael Strube, and Carolyn Rosé. The CODI-CRAC 2021 shared task on anaphora, bridging, and discourse deixis in dialogue. In Proceedings of the CODI-CRAC 2021 Shared Task on Anaphora, Bridging, and Discourse Deixis in Dialogue, pages 1–15, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.codi-sharedtask.1. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.codi-sharedtask.1. ↗ our card
  27. Varada Kolhatkar, Heike Zinsmeister, and Graeme Hirst. Interpreting anaphoric shell nouns using antecedents of cataphoric shell nouns as training data. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 300–310, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2013. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/D13-1030. ↗
  28. Varada Kolhatkar, Adam Roussel, Stefanie Dipper, and Heike Zinsmeister. Anaphora with non-nominal antecedents in computational linguistics: a Survey. Computational Linguistics, 44(3):547–612, 2018. doi: 10.1162/coli a 00327. URL https://www.aclweb.org/ anthology/J18-3007. ↗ our card
  29. Harold W. Kuhn. The hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 2(1-2):83–97, 1955. find
  30. Fred Landman. Groups I. Linguistics and Philosophy, pages 559–605, 1989. find
  31. Kenton Lee, Luheng He, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. End-to-end neural coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 188–197, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D17-1018. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/ D17-1018. ↗ our card
  32. Kenton Lee, Luheng He, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Higher-order coreference resolution with coarse-to-fine inference. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 687–692, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N18-2108. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N18-2108. ↗
  33. David K. Lewis. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8:339–359, 1979. find
  34. Chin-Yew Lin. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Workshop on Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74–81, Barcelona, Spain, 2004. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/W04-1013. ↗
  35. Godehard Link. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice- theoretical approach. In R. Bäuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, editors, Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, pages 302–323. Walter de Gruyter, 1983. find
  36. Godehard Link. Hydras: On the logic of relative clause constructions with multiple heads. In F. Landman and F. Veltman, editors, Varieties of Formal Semantics. Foris, Dordrecht, 1984. find
  37. Quan Liu, Hui Jiang, Andrew Evdokimov, Zhen-Hua Ling, Xiaodan Zhu, Si Wei, and Yu Hu. Cause-effect knowledge acquisition and neural association model for solving a set of winograd schema problems. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17, pages 2344–2350, 2017. doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2017/326. URL https://doi.org/ 10.24963/ijcai.2017/326. ↗
  38. Jing Lu and Vincent Ng. Event coreference resolution: A survey of two decades of research. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18, pages 5479–5486. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2018. doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2018/773. URL https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/773. ↗
  39. Xiaoqiang Luo. On coreference resolution performance metrics. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 25–32, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2005. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/H05-1004. ↗ our card
  40. Xiaoqiang Luo and Sameer Pradhan. Evaluation metrics. In Massimo Poesio, Roland Stuckardt, and Yannick Versley, editors, Anaphora Resolution: Algorithms, Resources and Applications, pages 147–170. Springer, 2016. find
  41. Xiaoqiang Luo, Sameer Pradhan, Marta Recasens, and Eduard Hovy. An extension of BLANC to system mentions. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 24–29, Baltimore, Maryland, 2014. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/v1/P14-2005. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P14-2005. ↗
  42. Susan Luperfoy. Discourse Pegs: A Computational Analysis of Context-Dependent Referring Expressions. PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, Dept. of Linguistics, Austin, TX, 1991. find
  43. John Lyons. Semantics. Cambridge University Press, 1977. find
  44. Ana Marasović, Leo Born, Juri Opitz, and Anette Frank. A mention-ranking model for abstract anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 221–232, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/D17-1021. URL https://www.aclweb.org/ anthology/D17-1021. ↗ our card
  45. Katja Markert, Yufang Hou, and Michael Strube. Collective classification for fine-grained information status. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Juju island, Korea, 2012. URL http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P12-1084. ↗
  46. Ruslan Mitkov. Anaphora Resolution. Longman, 2002. find
  47. Nafise Sadat Moosavi and Michael Strube. Which coreference evaluation metric do you trust? a proposal for a link-based entity aware metric. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 632–642, Berlin, Germany, 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P16-1060. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P16-1060. ↗ our card
  48. James Munkres. Algorithms for the assignment and transportation problems. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 5(1):32–38, 1957. find
  49. Anna Nedoluzhko. Generic noun phrases and annotation of coreference and bridging relations in the Prague dependency treebank. In Proceedings of the 7th Linguistic Annotation Workshop and Interoperability with Discourse, pages 103–111, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2013. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/W13-2313. ↗
  50. Anna Nedoluzhko, Michal Novák, Martin Popel, Zdeněk Žabokrtský, and Daniel Zeman. Coreference in universal dependencies 0.1 (CorefUD 0.1), 2021. URL http://hdl.handle.net/ 11234/1-3510. LINDAT/CLARIAH-CZ digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University. ↗
  51. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2002. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/1073083.1073135. URL https://aclanthology.org/P02-1040. ↗ our card
  52. Rebecca J. Passonneau. Instructions for applying discourse reference annotation for multiple applications (DRAMA). Unpublished manuscript., December 1997. find
  53. Massimo Poesio and Ron Artstein. Anaphoric annotation in the ARRAU corpus. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08), Marrakech, Morocco, 2008. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). URL http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/297_paper.pdf. ↗
  54. Massimo Poesio, Florence Bruneseaux, and Laurent Romary. The MATE meta-scheme for coreference in dialogues in multiple languages. In Workshop Towards Standards and Tools for Discourse Tagging, 1999. URL https://aclanthology.org/W99-0309. ↗
  55. Massimo Poesio, Sameer Pradhan, Marta Recasens, Kepa Rodriguez, and Yannick Versley. Annotated corpora and annotation tools. In M. Poesio, R. Stuckardt, and Y. Versley, editors, Anaphora Resolution: Algorithms, Resources and Applications, chapter 4. Springer, 2016a. find
  56. Massimo Poesio, Roland Stuckardt, and Yannick Versley, editors. Anaphora Resolution. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2016b. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-47909-4. URL https://doi.org/10. 1007%2F978-3-662-47909-4. ↗
  57. Massimo Poesio, Yulia Grishina, Varada Kolhatkar, Nafise Moosavi, Ina Roesiger, Adam Roussel, Fabian Simonjetz, Alexandra Uma, Olga Uryupina, Juntao Yu, and Heike Zinsmeister. Anaphora resolution with the ARRAU corpus. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Computational Models of Reference, Anaphora and Coreference, pages 11–22, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/W18-0702. URL https:// www.aclweb.org/anthology/W18-0702. ↗
  58. Massimo Poesio, Jon Chamberlain, Silviu Paun, Juntao Yu, Alexandra Uma, and Udo Kruschwitz. A crowdsourced corpus of multiple judgments and disagreement on anaphoric interpretation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 1778–1789, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N19-1176. URL https://aclanthology.org/N19-1176. ↗
  59. Massimo Poesio, Juntao Yu, Silviu Paun, Abdulrahman Aloraini, Pengcheng Lu, Janosch Haber, and Derya Cokal. Computational models of anaphora. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2023. find
  60. Sameer Pradhan, Alessandro Moschitti, Nianwen Xue, Olga Uryupina, and Yuchen Zhang. CoNLL-2012 shared task: Modeling multilingual unrestricted coreference in OntoNotes. In Joint Conference on EMNLP and CoNLL - Shared Task, pages 1–40, Jeju Island, Korea, 2012. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/W12-4501. ↗ our card
  61. Sameer Pradhan, Xiaoqiang Luo, Marta Recasens, Eduard Hovy, Vincent Ng, and Michael Strube. Scoring coreference partitions of predicted mentions: A reference implementation. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 30–35, Baltimore, Maryland, 2014. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/v1/P14-2006. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/ P14-2006. ↗ our card
  62. Altaf Rahman and Vincent Ng. Resolving complex cases of definite pronouns: The Winograd schema challenge. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 777–789, Jeju Island, Korea, 2012. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D12-1071. ↗
  63. William M. Rand. Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(336):846—-850, 1971. doi: 10.2307/2284239. ↗
  64. Marta Recasens and Eduard Hovy. BLANC: Implementing the Rand Index for coreference evaluation. Natural language engineering, 17(4):485–510, 2011. find
  65. Marta Recasens and M. Antònia Martı́. AnCora-CO: Coreferentially annotated corpora for Spanish and Catalan. Language Resources and Evaluation, 44(4):315–345, 2010. find
  66. Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34:8732–8740, 2020. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6399. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/6399. ↗
  67. Roger S. Schwarzschild. Pluralities. Kluwer, 1996. find
  68. Olga Uryupina, Ron Artstein, Antonella Bristot, Federica Cavicchio, Francesca Delogu, Kepa J. Rodriguez, and Massimo Poesio. Annotating a broad range of anaphoric phenomena, in a variety of genres: the ARRAU corpus. Journal of Natural Language Engineering, 2020. find
  69. Hardik Vala, Andrew Piper, and Derek Ruths. The more antecedents, the merrier: Resolving multi-antecedent anaphors. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2287–2296, Berlin, Germany, 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P16-1216. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P16-1216. ↗
  70. Kees van Deemter and Rodger Kibble. On coreferring: Coreference in MUC and related annotation schemes. Computational Linguistics, 26(4):629–637, 2000. URL https://aclanthology.org/J00-4005. ↗ our card
  71. Rob A. van der Sandt. Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics, 9 (4):333–377, 1992. find
  72. Yannick Versley. Vagueness and referential ambiguity in a large-scale annotated corpus. Research on Language and Computation, 6:333–353, 2008. find
  73. Marc Vilain, John Burger, John Aberdeen, Dennis Connolly, and Lynette Hirschman. A model-theoretic coreference scoring scheme. In Proceedings of the Sixth Message Understanding Conference (MUC-6), 1995. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/M95-1005. ↗ our card
  74. Bonnie L. Webber. A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora. Garland, New York, 1979. find
  75. Bonnie L. Webber. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(2):107–135, 1991. find
  76. Bonnie Lynn Webber and Breck Baldwin. Accommodating context change. In 30th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 96–103, Newark, Delaware, USA, 1992. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/981967.981980. URL https:// aclanthology.org/P92-1013. ↗
  77. Kellie Webster, Marta Recasens, Vera Axelrod, and Jason Baldridge. Mind the GAP: A balanced corpus of gendered ambiguous pronouns. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:605–617, 2018. doi: 10.1162/tacl a 00240. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/Q18-1042. ↗ our card
  78. Yoad Winter and Remko Scha. Plurals. In Shalom Lappin and Chris Fox, editors, The Handbook of Semantic Theory, chapter 3, pages 77–113. Wiley Blackwell, 2nd edition, 2015. find
  79. Sam Wiseman, Alexander M. Rush, and Stuart M. Shieber. Learning global features for coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 994–1004, San Diego, California, 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N16-1114. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N16-1114. ↗
  80. Juntao Yu and Massimo Poesio. Multitask learning based neural bridging reference resolution. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3534– 3546, Barcelona, Spain (Online), 2020. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.315. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/ 2020.coling-main.315. ↗
  81. Juntao Yu, Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Silviu Paun, and Massimo Poesio. Free the plural: Unrestricted split-antecedent anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6113–6125, Barcelona, Spain (Online), 2020a. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.538. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.coling-main.538. ↗ our card
  82. Juntao Yu, Alexandra Uma, and Massimo Poesio. A cluster ranking model for full anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 11–20, Marseille, France, 2020b. European Language Resources Association. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.lrec-1.2. ↗
  83. Juntao Yu, Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Silviu Paun, and Massimo Poesio. Stay together: A system for single and split-antecedent anaphora resolution. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2104.05320. ↗
  84. Juntao Yu, Sopan Khosla, Ramesh Manuvinakurike, Lori Levin, Vincent Ng, Massimo Poesio, Michael Strube, and Carolyn Rosé. The CODI-CRAC 2022 shared task on anaphora, bridging, and discourse deixis in dialogue. In Proceedings of the CODI-CRAC 2022 Shared Task on Anaphora, Bridging, and Discourse Deixis in Dialogue, pages 1–14, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, 2022a. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.codi-crac.1. ↗ our card
  85. Juntao Yu, Sopan Khosla, Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Silviu Paun, Sameer Pradhan, and Massimo Poesio. The universal anaphora scorer. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4873–4883, Marseille, France, 2022b. European Language Resources Association. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.lrec-1.521. ↗
  86. Juntao Yu, Michal Novák, Abdulrahman Aloraini, Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Silviu Paun, Sameer Pradhan, and Massimo Poesio. The universal anaphora scorer 2.0. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS), 2023a. find
  87. Juntao Yu, Silviu Paun, Maris Camilleri, Paloma Carretero Garcia, Jon Chamberlain, Udo Kruschwitz, and Massimo Poesio. Aggregating crowdsourced and automatic judgments to scale up a corpus of anaphoric reference for fiction and wikipedia texts. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), page 767–781, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2023b. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.eacl-main.54. ↗
  88. Amir Zeldes. The GUM corpus: Creating multilayer resources in the classroom. Language Resources and Evaluation, 51(3):581–612, 2017. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10579-016-9343-x. ↗
  89. Amir Zeldes. Can we fix the scope for coreference? Dialogue and Discourse, 13(1):41–62, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.5210/dad.2022.102. URL https://journals.uic.edu/ ojs/index.php/dad/article/view/11706. ↗ our card
  90. Ethan Zhou and Jinho D. Choi. They exist! introducing plural mentions to coreference resolution and entity linking. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 24–34, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C18-1003. ↗

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/paun-2023-scoring-coreference-chains-split-antecedent/