Abstract
To support a natural flow of a conversation in a chatbot, rhetorical structures of each message has to be analyzed. We classify a pair of paragraphs of text as appropriate for one to follow another, or inappropriate, based on communicative discourse considerations. To represent a multi-sentence message with respect to how it should follow a previous message in a conversation or dialogue, we build an extension of a discourse tree for it. Extended discourse tree is based on a discourse tree for RST relations with labels for communicative actions, and also additional arcs for anaphora and ontology-based relations for entities. We refer to such trees as Communicative Discourse Trees (CDTs). We explore syntactic and discourse features that are indicative of correct vs incorrect request-response or question-answer pairs. Two learning frameworks are used to recognize such correct pairs: deterministic, nearest-neighbor learning of CDTs as graphs, and a tree kernel learning of CDTs, where a feature space of all CDT sub-trees is subject to SVM learning. We form the positive training set from the correct pairs obtained from Yahoo Answers, social network, corporate conversations including Enron emails, customer complaints and interviews by journalists. The corresponding negative training set is artificially created by attaching responses for different, inappropriate requests that include relevant keywords. The evaluation showed that it is possible to recognize valid pairs in 70% of cases in the domains of weak request-response agreement and 80% of cases in the domains of strong agreement, which is essential to support automated conversations. These accuracies are comparable with the benchmark task of classification of discourse trees themselves as valid or invalid, and also with classification of multi-sentence answers in factoid question-answering systems. The applicability of proposed machinery to the problem of chatbots, social chats and programming via NL is demonstrated. We conclude that learning rhetorical structures in the form of CDTs is the key source of data to support answering complex questions, chatbots and dialogue management.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Airenti G, Bara BG, Colombetti M (1993) Conversation and behavior games in the pragmatics of dialogue. Cogn Sci 17:197–256
Allen J, Perrault C (1980) Analyzing intention in utterances. Artif Intell 15(3):143–178
Baumeister RF, Bushman BJ (2010) Social psychology and human nature: international edition. Wadsworth, Belmont
Bengio Y, Ducharme R, Vincent P, Janvin C (2003) A neural probabilistic language model. J Mach Learn Res 3(March 2003):1137–1155
Blaylock N, Allen J, Ferguson G (2003) Managing communicative intentions with collaborative problem solving. In: Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 63–84
Burstein JC, Braden-Harder L, Chodorow MS, Kaplan BA, Kukich K, Lu C, Rock DA, Wolff S (2002) System and method for computer-based automatic essay scoring. United States Patent 6,366,759: Educational Testing Service
Cohen W (2016) Enron email dataset. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~/enron/. Last downloaded 10 July 2016
Cohen PR, Levesque HJ (1990) Intention is choice with commitment. Artif Intell 42:213–261
Collins M, Duffy N (2002) Convolution kernels for natural language. In: Proceedings of NIPS, pp 625–632
Coulthard RM, Brazil D (1979) Exchange structure: discourse analysis monographs no. 5. The University of Birmingham, English Language Research, Birmingham
CrimeRussia (2016) http://en.crimerussia.ru/corruption/shadow-chairman-of-the-investigative-committee
Cristea D, Ide N, Romary L (1998) Veins theory: a model of global discourse cohesion and coherence. In: Boitet C, Whitelock P (eds) 17th international conference on computational linguistics, vol 1. Association for Computational Linguistics, Montreal, pp 281–285
De Boni M (2007) Using logical relevance for question answering. J Appl Log 5(1):92–103
Dijkstra EW (1965) Programming considered as a human activity. In: Proceedings of the IFIP Congress, pp 213–217
Galitsky B (2013) Machine learning of syntactic parse trees for search and classification of text. Eng Appl Artif Intell 26(3):1072–1091
Galitsky B (2016) Using extended tree kernels to recognize metalanguage in text. In: Kreinovich V (ed) Uncertainty modeling. Springer, Cham
Galitsky B (2017) Matching parse thickets for open domain question answering. Data Knowl Eng 107:24–50
Galitsky B, Ilvovsky D (2017) On a chatbot finding answers with optimal rhetoric representation. In: Proceedings of recent advances in natural language processing, pp 253–259
Galitsky B, Lebedeva N (2015) Recognizing documents versus meta-documents by tree kernel learning. In: FLAIRS conference, pp 540–545
Galitsky B, McKenna EW (2017) Sentiment extraction from consumer reviews for providing product recommendations. US Patent 9,646,078
Galitsky B, Shpitsberg I (2016) Autistic learning and cognition. In: Computational autism. Springer, Cham, pp 245–293
Galitsky B, Usikov D (2008) Programming spatial algorithms in natural language. AAAI workshop technical report WS-08-11, Palo Alto, pp 16–24
Galitsky B, Kuznetsov SO, Samokhin MV (2005) Analyzing conflicts with concept-based learning. In: International conference on conceptual structures, pp 307–322
Galitsky B, Dobrocsi G, de la Rosa JL, Kuznetsov SO (2011) Using generalization of syntactic parse trees for taxonomy capture on the web. In: International conference on conceptual structures, pp 104–117
Galitsky B, Usikov D, Kuznetsov SO (2013) Parse thicket representations for answering multi-sentence questions. In: 20th international conference on conceptual structures. ICCS, p 95
Galitsky B, Ilvovsky D, Lebedeva N, Usikov D (2014) Improving trust in automation of social promotion. In: AAAI Spring symposium on the intersection of robust intelligence and trust in autonomous systems, Stanford CA
Galitsky B, Ilvovsky D, Kuznetsov SO (2015a) Text integrity assessment: sentiment profile vs rhetoric structure. CICLing-2015, Cairo
Galitsky B, Ilvovsky D, Kuznetsov SO (2015b) Rhetoric map of an answer to compound queries. Knowledge Trail Inc. ACL 2015, Beijing, pp 681–686
Galitsky B, Ilvovsky D, Kuznetsov SO (2015c) Text classification into abstract classes based on discourse structure. In: Proceedings of recent advances in natural language processing, Hissar, Bulgaria, 7–9 September 2015, pp 200–207
Ganter B, Kuznetsov SO (2003) Hypotheses and Version Spaces, Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Conceptual Structures, ICCS’03, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol 2746, pp 83–95
Grefenstette E, Dinu G, Zhang Y, Sadrzadeh M and Baroni M (2013) Multi-step regression learning for compositional distributional semantics. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Computational Semantics. Association for Computational Linguistics
Grosz B, Sidner C (1986) Attention, intention, and the structure of discourse. Comput Linguist 12(3):175–204
Jansen P, Surdeanu M, Clark P (2014) Discourse complements lexical semantics for nonfactoid answer reranking. In: Proceedings of the 52nd ACL
Joty SR, Carenini G, Ng RT (2016) CODRA: a novel discriminative framework for rhetorical analysis. Comput Linguist 41(3):385–435
Jurafsky D, Martin JH (2000) Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Kate R, Wong YW, Mooney R (2005) Learning to transform natural to formal languages. Proc Natl Conf Artif Intell 20:1062–1068
Kipper K, Korhonen A, Ryant N, Palmer M (2008) A large-scale classification of English verbs. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal 42:21–40
Kontos J, Malagardi I, Peros J (2016) Question answering and rhetoric analysis of biomedical texts in the AROMA system. Unpublished manuscript. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.379.5382. Last downloaded 12 September 2016
Kuznetsov SO (1999) Learning of simple conceptual graphs from positive and negative examples. In: European conference on principles of data mining and knowledge discovery. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 384–391
Levinson SC (2000) Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Litman DL, Allen JF (1987) A plan recognition model for subdialogues in conversation. Cogn Sci 11:163–200
Mann W, Thompson S (1988) Rhetorical structure theory: towards a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdiscipl J Stud Discourse 8(3):243–281
Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado GS, Jeffrey D (2015) Computing numeric representations of words in a high-dimensional space. US Patent 9,037,464, Google, Inc.
Mitchell J, Lapata M (2010) Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cogn Sci 34(8):1388–1429
Mitocariu E, Anechitei DA, Cristea D (2016) Comparing discourse tree structures. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262331642_Comparing_Discourse_Tree_Structures. Accessed 15 May 2016
Moschitti A, Quarteroni S, Basili R, and Manandhar S (2007) Exploiting syntactic and shallow semantic kernels for question/answer classification. In ACL’07, Prague, Czech Republic
Peldszus A, Stede M (2013) From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts: a survey. Int J Cognit Informat Nat Intell 7(1):1–31
Popescu V, Caelen J, Burileanu C (2007) Logic-based rhetorical structuring for natural language generation in human-computer dialogue. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4629:309–317
Popescu-Belis A (2005) Dialogue acts: one or more dimensions? Tech report ISSCO working paper n. 62
Radev DR, Jing H, Budzikowska M (2000) Centroid-based summarization of multiple documents: sentence extraction, utility-based evaluation, and user studies. In: Proceedings of the 2000 NAACL-ANLP workshop on automatic summarization, vol 4
Reichman R (1985) Getting computers to talk like you and me: discourse context, focus and semantics (an ATN model). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London
Santhosh S, Ali J (2012) Discourse based advancement on question answering system. J Soft Comput 1(2):1–12
Schiffrin D (2005) Discourse. In: Dittmar N, Trudgill P (eds) Handbook of sociolinguistics. Mouton, de Gruyter
Scholman M, Evers-Vermeul J, Sanders T (2016) Categories of coherence relations in discourse annotation. Dialogue Discourse 7(2):1–28
Socher RC, Manning D, Ng AY (2010) Learning continuous phrase representations and syntactic parsing with recursive neural networks. In: Proceedings of the NIPS-2010 deep learning and unsupervised feature learning workshop
Sparck Jones K (1995) Summarising: analytic framework, key component, experimental method. In: Endres-Niggemeyer B, Hobbs J, Sparck Jones K (eds) Summarising text for intelligent communication, Dagstuhl seminar report 79, 13.12–17.12.93 (9350). Dagstuhl, Wadern
Sperber D, Wilson D (1986) Relevance: communication and cognition. Blackwell/Oxford/Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Surdeanu M, Hicks T, Valenzuela-Escarcega MA (2015) Two practical rhetorical structure theory parsers. In: Proceedings of the conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics – human language technologies: software demonstrations (NAACL HLT)
Traum DR, Hinkelman EA (1992) Conversation acts in task-oriented spoken dialogue. Comput Intell 8(3):575–599
Tsui AMB (1994) English conversation. Describing english language series. Oxford University Press, London
Yessenalina A, Cardie C (2011) Compositional matrix-space models for sentiment analysis. In: EMNLP’11. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, pp 172–182
Walker MA, Passonneau RJ, Boland JE (2001) Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of DARPA communicator spoken dialogue systems. In: Proceedings of the ACL, pp 515–522
Wang W, Su J, Tan CL (2010) Kernel based discourse relation recognition with temporal ordering information. ACL
Wilks YA (ed) (1999) Machine conversations. Kluwer, New York
Zanzotto FM, Korkontzelos I, Fallucchi F, Manandhar S (2010) Estimating linear models for 2112 compositional distributional semantics. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference 2113 on Computational Linguistics (COLING)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Galitsky, B. (2019). Rhetorical Agreement: Maintaining Cohesive Conversations. In: Developing Enterprise Chatbots. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04299-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04299-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04298-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04299-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)