Evaluating automatic extraction of rules for sentence plan construction

15Citations
Citations of this article
86Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The freely available SPaRKy sentence planner uses hand-written weighted rules for sentence plan construction, and a user-or domain-specific second-stage ranker for sentence plan selection. However, coming up with sentence plan construction rules for a new domain can be difficult. In this paper, we automatically extract sentence plan construction rules from the RST-DT corpus. In our rules, we use only domainindependent features that are available to a sentence planner at runtime. We evaluate these rules, and outline ways in which they can be used for sentence planning. We have integrated them into a revised version of SPaRKy. © 2009 Association for Computational Linguistics.

References Powered by Scopus

Sentence fusion for multidocument news summarization

308Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations

131Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Individual and domain adaptation in sentence planning for dialogue

94Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Semantically conditioned lstm-based Natural language generation for spoken dialogue systems

654Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Survey of the state of the art in natural language generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluation

552Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A hybrid approach to multi-document summarization of opinions in reviews

71Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Stent, A., & Molina, M. (2009). Evaluating automatic extraction of rules for sentence plan construction. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2009 Conference: 10th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue (pp. 290–297). Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). https://doi.org/10.3115/1708376.1708417

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 23

51%

Researcher 13

29%

Lecturer / Post doc 5

11%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

9%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 34

74%

Linguistics 10

22%

Neuroscience 1

2%

Social Sciences 1

2%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free