Generating Subsequent Reference in Shared Visual Scenes: Computation vs Re-Use

Traditional computational approaches to referring expression generation operate in a deliberate manner, choosing the attributes to be included on the basis of their ability to distinguish the intended referent from its distractors. However, work in psycholinguistics suggests that speakers align their referring expressions with those used previously in the discourse, implying less deliberate choice and more subconscious reuse. This raises the question as to which is a more accurate characterisation of what people do. Using a corpus of dialogues containing 16,358 referring expressions, we explore this question via the generation of subsequent references in shared visual scenes. We use a machine learning approach to referring expression generation and demonstrate that incorporating features that correspond to the computational tradition does not match human referring behaviour as well as using features corresponding to the process of alignment. The results support the view that the traditional model of referring expression generation that is widely assumed in work on natural language generation may not in fact be correct; our analysis may also help explain the oft-observed redundancy found in human-produced referring expressions.

[1]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[2]  Robert Dale,et al.  The Use of Spatial Relations in Referring Expression Generation , 2008, INLG.

[3]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Learning Attribute Selections for Non-Pronominal Expressions , 2000, ACL.

[4]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Naming and Describing in Social Communication , 1980 .

[5]  Pamela W. Jordan,et al.  Intentional influences on object redescriptions in dialogue: evidence from an empirical study , 2000 .

[6]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  Graph-Based Generation of Referring Expressions , 2003, CL.

[7]  Robert Dale,et al.  Computational Interpretations of the Gricean Maxims in the Generation of Referring Expressions , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[8]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  Learning Content Selection Rules for Generating Object Descriptions in Dialogue , 2005, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[9]  Stefan Kopp,et al.  An Alignment-Capable Microplanner for Natural Language Generation , 2009, ENLG.

[10]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[11]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  Preferences versus Adaptation during Referring Expression Generation , 2010, ACL.

[12]  Claire Gardent,et al.  GENERATING BRIDGING DEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS , 2008 .

[13]  Albert Gatt,et al.  The TUNA-REG Challenge 2009: Overview and Evaluation Results , 2009, ENLG.

[14]  Oliver Lemon,et al.  Learning Lexical Alignment Policies for Generating Referring Expressions for Spoken Dialogue Systems , 2009, ENLG.

[15]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Referring as a Collaborative Process , 2003 .

[16]  Max M. Louwerse,et al.  Multimodal Communication in Face-to-Face Computer-Mediated Conversations , 2007 .

[17]  Albert Gatt,et al.  The TUNA Challenge 2008: Overview and Evaluation Results , 2008, INLG.

[18]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[19]  Robert Dale,et al.  Cooking Up Referring Expressions , 1989, ACL.

[20]  Amanda Stent,et al.  Automatic Evaluation of Referring Expression Generation Using Corpora ∗ , 2005 .

[21]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  Graphs and Booleans: on the Generation of Referring Expressions , 2008 .

[22]  Laura Stoia,et al.  Noun Phrase Generation for Situated Dialogs , 2006, INLG.

[23]  Ian Witten,et al.  Data Mining , 2000 .

[24]  Robert Dale,et al.  Dialogue Reference in a Visual Domain , 2010, LREC.