Refine
Year of publication
- 2004 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Institute
- Informatik (3) (remove)
Robuste Anaphernresolution
(2004)
Assessing enhanced knowledge discovery systems (eKDSs) constitutes an intricate issue that is understood merely to a certain extent by now. Based upon an analysis of why it is difficult to formally evaluate eKDSs, it is argued for a change of perspective: eKDSs should be understood as intelligent tools for qualitative analysis that support, rather than substitute, the user in the exploration of the data; a qualitative gap will be identified as the main reason why the evaluation of enhanced knowledge discovery systems is difficult. In order to deal with this problem, the construction of a best practice model for eKDSs is advocated. Based on a brief recapitulation of similar work on spoken language dialogue systems, first steps towards achieving this goal are performed, and directions of future research are outlined.
In the last decade, much effort went into the design of robust third-person pronominal anaphor resolution algorithms. Typical approaches are reported to achieve an accuracy of 60-85%. Recent research addresses the question of how to deal with the remaining difficult-toresolve anaphors. Lappin (2004) proposes a sequenced model of anaphor resolution according to which a cascade of processing modules employing knowledge and inferencing techniques of increasing complexity should be applied. The individual modules should only deal with and, hence, recognize the subset of anaphors for which they are competent. It will be shown that the problem of focusing on the competence cases is equivalent to the problem of giving precision precedence over recall. Three systems for high precision robust knowledge-poor anaphor resolution will be designed and compared: a ruleset-based approach, a salience threshold approach, and a machine-learning-based approach. According to corpus-based evaluation, there is no unique best approach. Which approach scores highest depends upon type of pronominal anaphor as well as upon text genre.