Hidetsugu Nanba
Manabu Okumura
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we first experimentally investigated the factors that make extracts hard to read. We did this by having human subjects try to revise extracts to produce more readable ones. We then classified the factors into five, most of which are related to cohesion, after which we devised revision rules for each factor, and partially implemented a system that revises extracts.
- {Fukumoto, 1990} Fukumoto, J. (1990) Context Structure Analysis Based on the Writer's Insistence. IPSJ SIG Notes, NL-78-15, pp. 113--120. in Japanese.Google Scholar
- {Halliday et al., 1976} Halliday, M. A. K., Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English. Longman.Google Scholar
- {Jing, 1999} Jing, H. (1999) Summary Generation through Intelligent Cutting and Pasting of the Input Document. Ph.D. Thesis Proposal, Columbia Univ.Google Scholar
- {Kawahara, 1989} Kawahara, H. (1989) Chapter 9, in Bunshoukouzou to youyakubun no shosou. Kuroshioshuppan, pp. 141--167. in Japanese.Google Scholar
- {Klare, 1963} Klare, G. R. (1963) The Measurement of Readability. Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
- {Kurohashi et al., 1998} Kurohashi, S., Nagao, M. (1998) Japanese Morphological Analysis System JUMAN version 3.5.Google Scholar
- {Kurohashi, 1998} Kurohashi, S. (1998) Japanese parser KNP version 2.0 b6.Google Scholar
- {Mathis et al., 1973} Mathis, B., Rush, J., Young, C. (1973) Improvement of Automatic Abstracts by the Use of Structural Analysis. JASIS, 24(2), pp. 101--109.Google ScholarCross Ref
- {Mani et al., 1999} Mani, I., Gates, B., Bloedorn, E. (1999) Improving Summaries by Revising Them. the 37th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pp. 558--565. Google ScholarDigital Library
- {MIT, 1999} Mani, I., Maybury, M. T. (1999) Advances in Automatic Text Summarization. MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- {Mann et al., 1986} Mann, W. C., Thompson, S. A. (1986) Rhetorical Structure Theory: Description and Construction of Text Structure. Proc. of the third International Workshop on Text Generation.Google Scholar
- {Minel et al., 1997} Minel, J., Nugier, S., Gerald, P. (1997) How to Appreciate the Quality of Automatic Text Summarization? Examples of FAN and MLUCE Protocols and their Results on SERAPHIN. Intelligent Scalable Text Summarization, Proc. of a Workshop, ACL, pp. 25--30.Google Scholar
- {Nomoto et al., 1997} Nomoto, T., Matsumoto, Y. (1997) The Readability of Human Coding and Effects on Automatic Abstracting. IPSJ SIG Notes, NL-120-11, pp. 71--76. in Japanese.Google Scholar
- {Paice, 1990} Paice, C. D. (1990) Constructing Literature Abstracts by Computer: Techniques and Prospects. Info. Proc. & Manage., 26 (1), pp. 171--186. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Producing more readable extracts by revising them
Recommendations
A belief revision framework for revising epistemic states with partial epistemic states
Belief revision performs belief change on an agent's beliefs when new evidence (either of the form of a propositional formula or of the form of a total pre-order on a set of interpretations) is received. Jeffrey's rule is commonly used for revising ...
Revising horn theories
IJCAI'11: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume Volume TwoThis paper investigates belief revision where the underlying logic is that governing Horn clauses. It proves to be the case that classical (AGM) belief revision doesn't immediately generalise to the Horn case. In particular, a standard construction ...
Revising by an inconsistent set of formulas
IJCAI'11: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume Volume TwoThis paper presents an approach to belief revision in which revision is a function from a belief state and a finite set of formulas to a new belief state. In the interesting case, the set for revision S may be inconsistent but individual members of S ...
Comments