File size: 52,124 Bytes
6fa4bc9 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 |
{
"paper_id": "A00-1013",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T01:12:00.699382Z"
},
"title": "DP: A Detector for Presuppositions in survey questions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Katja",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiemer-Hastings",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Memphis Memphis",
"location": {
"postCode": "38152",
"region": "TN"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Peter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiemer-Hastings",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Edinburgh",
"location": {
"addrLine": "2 Buccleuch Place Edinburgh",
"postCode": "EH8 9LW",
"country": "UK"
}
},
"email": "peterwh@cogsci.ed.ac.uk"
},
{
"first": "Sonya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rajan",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Memphis",
"location": {
"postCode": "38152",
"settlement": "Memphis",
"region": "TN"
}
},
"email": "sonyarajan@hotmail.com"
},
{
"first": "Art",
"middle": [],
"last": "Graesser",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Memphis",
"location": {
"postCode": "38152",
"settlement": "Memphis",
"region": "TN"
}
},
"email": "graesser@memphis.edu"
},
{
"first": "Roger",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kreuz",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Memphis",
"location": {
"postCode": "38152",
"settlement": "Memphis",
"region": "TN"
}
},
"email": "rkreuz@memphis.edu"
},
{
"first": "Ashish",
"middle": [],
"last": "Karnavat",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Memphis",
"location": {
"postCode": "38152",
"settlement": "Memphis",
"region": "TN"
}
},
"email": "akarnavat@hotmail.com"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "This paper describes and evaluates a detector of presuppositions (DP) for survey questions. Incorrect presuppositions can make it difficult to answer a question correctly. Since they can be difficult to detect, DP is a useful tool for questionnaire designer. DP performs well using local characteristics of presuppositions. It reports the presupposition to the survey methodologist who can determine whether the presupposition is valid.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "A00-1013",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "This paper describes and evaluates a detector of presuppositions (DP) for survey questions. Incorrect presuppositions can make it difficult to answer a question correctly. Since they can be difficult to detect, DP is a useful tool for questionnaire designer. DP performs well using local characteristics of presuppositions. It reports the presupposition to the survey methodologist who can determine whether the presupposition is valid.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Presuppositions are propositions that take some information as given, or as \"the logical assumptions underlying utterances\" (Dijkstra & de Smedt, 1996, p. 255 ; for a general overview, see McCawley, 1981) . Presupposed information includes state of affairs, such as being married; events., such as a graduation; possessions, such as a house, children, knowledge about something; and others. For example, the question, \"when did you graduate from college\", presupposes the event that the respondent did in fact graduate from college. The answer options may be ranges of years, such as \"between 1970 and 1980\". Someone who has never attended college can either not respond at all, or give a random (and false) reply. Thus, incorrect presuppositions cause two problems. First, the question is difficult to answer. Second, assuming that people feel obliged to answer them anyway, their answers present false information. This biases survey statistics, or, in an extreme case, makes them useless. The detector for presuppositions (DP) is part of the computer tool QUAID (Graesser, Wiemer-Hastings, Kreuz, Wiemer-Hastings & Marquis, in press) , which helps survey methodologists design questions that are easy to process. DP detects a presupposition and reports it to the survey methodologist, who can examine if the presupposition is correct.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 158,
"text": "(Dijkstra & de Smedt, 1996, p. 255",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 204,
"text": "McCawley, 1981)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 1065,
"end": 1136,
"text": "(Graesser, Wiemer-Hastings, Kreuz, Wiemer-Hastings & Marquis, in press)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "QUAID is a computerized QUEST questionnaire evaluation aid. It is based on QUEST (Graesser & Franklin, 1990 ), a computational model of the cognitive processes underlying human question answering. QUAID critiques questions with respect to unfamiliar technical terms, vague terms, working memory overload, complex syntax, incorrect presuppositions, and unclear question purpose or category. These problems are a subset of potential problems that have been identified by Graesser, Bommareddy, Swamer, and Golding (1996; see also Graesser, Kennedy, Wiemer-Hastings & Ottati, 1999) . QUAID performs reliably on the first five problem categories. In comparison to these five problems, presupposition detection is even more challenging. For unfamiliar technical terms, for example, QUAID reports words with frequencies below a certain threshold. Such an elegant solution is impossible for presuppositions. Their forms vary widely across presupposition types. Therefore, their detection requires a complex set of rules, carefully tuned to identify a variety of presupposition problems. DP prints out the presuppositions of a question, and relies on the survey methodologist to make the final decision whether the presuppositions are valid.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 107,
"text": "(Graesser & Franklin, 1990",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 469,
"end": 517,
"text": "Graesser, Bommareddy, Swamer, and Golding (1996;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 518,
"end": 577,
"text": "see also Graesser, Kennedy, Wiemer-Hastings & Ottati, 1999)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We conducted a content analysis of questions with presupposition problems to construct a list of indicators for presuppositions. 22 questions containing problematic presuppositions were selected from a corpus of 550 questions, taken from questionnaires provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. The 22 questions were identified based on ratings by three human expert raters. It may seem that this problem is infrequent, but then, these questions are part of commonly used questionnaires that have been designed and revised very thoughtfully. Additionally, we randomly selected a contrast question sample of 22 questions rated unproblematic with regard to incorrect presuppositions by all three raters. Examples 1and 2are questions rated as problematic by at least two raters; examples (3) and (4) present questions that do not contain presuppositions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "How to detect presuppositions",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(1) Is that the same place you USUALLY go when you need routine or preventive care, such as a physical examination or check up? (2) How much do your parents or parent know about your close friends' parents?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "How to detect presuppositions",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(3) From date to December 31, did you take one or more trips or outings in the United States, of at least one mile, for the PRIMARY purpose of observing, photographing, or feeding wildlife? (4) Are you now on full-time active duty with the armed forces?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "How to detect presuppositions",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Example (1) presupposes the habit of making use of routine / preventive care; (2) presupposes that the respondent has close friends. As stated above, incorrect presuppositions are infrequent in well-designed questionnaires. For example, questions about details of somebody's marriage are usually preceded by a question establishing the person's marital status. In spite of this, providing feedback about presuppositions to the survey methodologist is useful. Importantly, QUAID is designed to aid in the design process. Consider a survey on healthrelated issues. In the context of this topic, a survey methodologist may be interested in how many days of work a person missed because of illness, but not think about whether the person actually has a job. Upon entering the question \"how many days of work did you miss last year because of illness\" into the QUAID tool, DP would report that the question presupposes employment. The survey methodologist could then insert a question about employment. Second, there are subtle presuppositions that may go undetected even by a skilled survey designer. These are presuppositions about things that are likely (but not necessarily) true. For example, a question may inquire about a person's close friends (presupposing close friends) or someone's standard place for preventive care (presupposing the habit of making use of preventive care). DP does not know which presuppositions are likely to be valid or invalid, and is therefore more likely to detect such subtle incorrect presuppositions than a human expert.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "How to detect presuppositions",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We constructed a set of presupposition detection rules based on the content analysis. The rules use a wide range of linguistic information about the input sentences, including particular words (such as \"why\"), part of speech categories (e.g., whpronoun), and complex syntactic subtrees (such as a quantification clause, followed by a noun phrase).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The presupposition detector (DP)",
"sec_num": "1.1"
},
{
"text": "We used Eric Brill's rule-based word tagger (1992, 1994a, 1994b) , the de facto state of the art tagging system, to break the questions down into part-ofspeech categories. Brill's tagger produces a single lexical category for each word in a sentence by first assigning tags based on the frequency of occurrence of the word in that category, and then applying a set of context-based re-tagging rules. The tagged text was then passed on to Abney's SCOL /CASS system (1996a /CASS system ( , 1996b , an extreme bottom-up parser.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 64,
"text": "(1992, 1994a, 1994b)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 470,
"text": "/CASS system (1996a",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 471,
"end": 493,
"text": "/CASS system ( , 1996b",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic analysis component",
"sec_num": "1.1.1"
},
{
"text": "It is designed to avoid ambiguity problems by applying grammar rules on a level-by-level basis. Each level contains rules that will only fire if they are correct with high probability. Once the parse moves on to a higher level, it will not attempt to apply lower-level rules. In this way, the parser identifies chunks of information, which it can be reasonably certain are connected, even when it cannot create a complete parse of a sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The syntactic analysis component",
"sec_num": "1.1.1"
},
{
"text": "The presupposition indicators The indicators for presuppositions were tested against questions rated as \"unproblematic\" to eliminate items that failed to discriminate questions with versus without presuppositions. We constructed a second list of indicators that detect questions containing no presuppositions. All indicators are listed in Table 1 . These lists are certainly far from complete, but they present a good basis for evaluating of how well presuppositions can be detected by an NLP system.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 339,
"end": 346,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "1.1.2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "These rules were integrated into a decision tree structure, as illustrated in Figure 1 . ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 86,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "1.1.2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Different types of presuppositions can be distinguished based on particular indicators. Examples for presupposition types, such as events or possessions, were mentioned above. Table 2 presents an exhaustive overview of presupposition types identified in our analysis.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 176,
"end": 183,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Classifying presuppositions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Note that some indicators can point to more than one type of presupposition. \"how many\" NP \"where is\" NP Indexicals: \"this\" / \"that\" NP \"these\" / \"those\" NP \"such a(n)\" NP an entity: object, state, or person (NP) a shared referent or common ground (NP) \"how much\" NP ... \"how much does\" NP \"know\" \"how many\" NP ... Possessive pronouns Apostrophe 's': NP's a possession (NP); exception list: NP's that can be presupposed (name, age, etc.)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Classifying presuppositions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\"why\" S a state of affairs, fact, or assertion (S) VP infinitive an intention / a goal (infinitive / \"why\" VP NP NP VP) \"who\" VP \"When\" VP ...\"when\" NP VP an a~ent (A person who VP) an event (VP) DP reports when a presupposition is present, and it also indicates the type of presupposition that is made (e.g., a common ground presupposition or the presupposition of a habit) in order to point the question designer to the potential presupposition error. DP uses the expressions in the right column in Table 2 , selected in accordance with the indicators, and fills them into the brackets in its output (see Figure 1 ). For example, given the question \"How old is your child?\", DP would detect the possessive pronoun \"your\", and accordingly respond: \"It looks like you are presupposing a possession (child). Make sure that the presupposition is correct by consulting the previous questions.\"",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 501,
"end": 508,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 607,
"end": 615,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Classifying presuppositions",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In this section, we report summary statistics for the human ratings of our test questions and the measures we computed based on these ratings to evaluate DP's performance.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We used human ratings as the standard against which to evaluate the performance of DP. Three raters rated about 90 questions from 12 questionnaires provided by the Census Bureau. DP currently does not use context. To have a fair test of its performance, the questions were presented to the human raters out of context, and they were instructed to rate them as isolated questions. Ratings were made on a four-point scale, indicating whether the question contained no presupposition (1), probably contained no presupposition (2), probably contained a presupposition (3), or definitely contained a presupposition (4). We transformed the ratings into Boolean ratings by combining ratings of 1 and 2 (\"no problem\") versus ratings of 3 and 4 (\"problem\"). We obtained very similar results for analyses of the ratings based on the four-point and the Boolean scale. For simplicity, we just report the results for the Boolean scale.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Human ratings",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "We evaluated the agreement among the raters with three measures: correlations, Cohen's kappa, and percent agreement. Correlations were significant only between two raters (r = 0. 41); the correlations of these two with the third rater produced non-significant correlations, indicating that the third rater may have used a different strategy.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Agreement among the raters",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "The kappa scores, similarly, were significant only for two raters (_k_ = 0.36). In terms of percent agreement, the raters with correlated ratings agreed in 67% of the cases. The percentages of agreement with rater 3 were 57% and 56%, respectively. DP ratings were significantly correlated with the ratings provided by the two human raters who agreed well (_r = 0.32 and 0.31), resulting in agreement of ratings in 63% and 66% of the questions. In other words, the agreement of ratings provided by the system and by two human raters is comparable to the highest agreement rate achieved between the human raters. Some of the human ratings diverged substantially.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Agreement among the raters",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Therefore, we computed two restrictive measures based on the ratings to evaluate the performance of DP. Both scores are Boolean. The first score is \"lenient\"; it reports a presupposition only if at least two raters report a presupposition for the question (rating of 3 or 4). We call this measure P~j, a majority-based presupposition count. The second score is strict. It reports a presupposition only if all three raters report a presupposition. This measure is called Pcomp, a presupposition count based on complete agreement.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Agreement among the raters",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "It results in fewer detected presuppositions overall: Pcomp reports presuppositions for 29 of the questions (33%), whereas P~j reports 57 (64%).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Agreement among the raters",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Evaluation of the DP DP ratings were significantly correlated only with Pcomp (0.35). DP and P~o~ ratings were in agreement for 67% of the questions. Table 3 lists hit and false alarm rates for DP, separately for P~j and P~omp. The hit rate indicates how many of the presuppositions identified by the human ratings were detected by DP.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 157,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2.3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The false alarm rate indicates how often DP reported a presupposition when the human raters did not. The measures look better with respect to the complete agreement criterion, P~omp- Table 3 further lists recall and precision scores. The recall rate indicates how many presuppositions DP detects out of the presuppositions reported by the human rating criterion (computed as hits, divided by the sum of hits and misses). The precision score (computed as hits, divided by the sum of hits and false alarms) measures how many presuppositions reported by DP are actually present, as reported by the human ratings. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 183,
"end": 190,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "2.3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Based on the first results, we made a few modifications and then reevaluated DP. In particular, we added items to the possession exception list based on the new corpus and made some of the no-presupposition rules more specific. As a more drastic change, we updated the decision tree structure so that presupposition indicators overrule indicators against presuppositions, increasing the number of reported presuppositions for cases of conflicting indicators:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An updated version of DP",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "If there is evidence for a problem, report \"Problem\" Else if evidence against problem, report \"No problem\" else, report \"Probably not a problem\" Separate analyses show that the modification of the decision tree accounts for most of the performance improvement. Table 4 lists the performance measures for the updated DP. Hit and recall rate increased, but so did the false alarm rate, resulting in a lower precision score. The d' score of the updated system with respect to Pcomp (1.3) is substantially better. The recall rate for this setting is perfect, i.e., DP did not miss any presuppositions. Since survey methodologists will decide whether the presupposition is really a problem, a higher false alarm rate is preferable to missing out presupposition cases. Thus, the updated DP is an improvement over the first version. Conclusion DP can detect presuppositions, and can thereby reliably help a survey methodologist to eliminate incorrect presuppositions. The results for DP with respect to Pco~p are comparable to, and in some cases even better than, the results for the other five categories. This is a very good result, since most of the five problems allow for \"easy\" and \"elegant\" solutions, whereas DP needs to be adjusted to a variety of problems. It is interesting that the performance of DP looks so much better when compared to the complete agreement score, Pcomp than when compared to P~j.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 261,
"end": 268,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "An updated version of DP",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Recall that Pcomp only reports a presupposition if all the raters report one. The high agreement of the raters in these cases can presumably be explained by the salience of the presupposition problem. This indicates that DP makes use of reliable indicators for its performance. Good agreement with the other measure, Pmaj, would suggest that DP additionally reports presuppositions in cases where humans do not agree that a presupposition is present. The higher agreement with the stricter measure is thus a good result. DP currently works like the other modules of QUA]D: it reports potential problems, but leaves it to the survey methodologist to decide whether to act upon the feedback. As such, DP is a substantial addition to QUA]D.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "A future challenge is to turn DP into a DIP (detector of incorrect presuppositions), that is, to reduce the number of reported presuppositions to those likely to be incorrect. DP currently evaluates all questions independent of context, resulting in frequent detections. For example, 20 questions about \"this person\" may follow one question that establishes the referent.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "High-frequency repetitive presupposition reports could easily get annoying. Is a DIP system feasible? At present, it is difficult for NLP systems to use information from context in the evaluation of a statement. What is required to solve this problem is a mechanism that determines whether a presupposed entity (an object, an activity, an assertion, etc.) has been established as applicable in the previous discourse (e.g., in preceding questions). The Construction Integration (CI) model by Kintsch (1998) provides a good example for how such reference ambiguity can be resolved. CI uses a semantic network that represents an entity in the discourse focus (such as \"this person\") through higher activations of its links to other concept nodes. Perhaps models such as the CI model can be integrated into the QUAID model to perform context analyses, in combination with tools like Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA, Landauer & Dumais, 1997) , which represents text units as vectors in a high-dimensional semantic space. LSA measures the semantic similarity of text units (such as questions) by computing vector cosines. This feature may make LSA a useful tool in the detection of a previous question that establishes a presupposed entity in a later question. However, questionnaires differ from connected discourse, such as coherent stories, in aspects that make the present problem rather more difficult. Most importantly, the referent for \"this person\" may have been established in question number 1, and the current question containing the presupposition \"this person\" is question number 52. A DIP system would have to handle a flexible amount of context, because the distance between questions establishing the correctness of a presupposition and a question building up on it can vary. On the one hand, one could limit the considered context to, say, three questions and risk missing the critical question. On the other hand, it is computationally expensive to keep the complete previous context in the systems \"working memory\" to evaluate the few presuppositions which may refer back over a large number of questions. Solving this problem will likely require comparing a variety of different settings.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 492,
"end": 506,
"text": "Kintsch (1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 911,
"end": 935,
"text": "Landauer & Dumais, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "3.1"
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This work was partially supported by the Census Bureau (43-YA-BC-802930) and by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SBR 9720314 and SBR 9977969). We wish to acknowledge three colleagues for rating the questions in our evaluation text corpus, and our collaborator Susan Goldman as well as two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgements",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Partial parsing via finite-state cascades",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Abney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Proceedings of the ESSLLI '96 Robust Parsing Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Abney, S. (1996a). Partial parsing via finite-state cascades. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI '96 Robust Parsing Workshop.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Methods and statistical linguistics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Abney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "The Balancing Act",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Abney, S. (1996b). Methods and statistical linguistics. In J. Klavans & P. Resnik (Eds.), The Balancing Act. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "A simple rule-based part of speech tagger",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brill",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Third Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brill, E. (1992). A simple rule-based part of speech tagger. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing. ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "A corpus-based approach to language learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brill",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brill, E. (1993). A corpus-based approach to language learning. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Some advances in rule-based part of speech tagging",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brill",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Articial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brill, E. (1994). Some advances in rule-based part of speech tagging. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Articial Intelligence. AAAI Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Computational psycholinguistics. AI and connectionist models of human language processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dijkstra",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "De Smedt",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dijkstra, T., & de Smedt, K. (1996). Computational psycholinguistics. AI and connectionist models of human language processing. London: Taylor & Francis.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Integrating questionnaire design with a cognitive computational model of human question answering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Graesser",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bommareddy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Swamer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Golding",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Answering questions: Methods of determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "343--175",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Graesser, A. C., Bommareddy, S., Swamer, S., & Golding, J. (1996). Integrating questionnaire design with a cognitive computational model of human question answering. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions: Methods of determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research (pp. 343-175). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "QUEST: A cognitive model of question answering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Graesser",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [
"P"
],
"last": "Franklin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Discourse Processes",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "",
"pages": "279--304",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Graesser, A.C., & Franklin, S.P. (1990). QUEST: A cognitive model of question answering. Discourse Processes, 13, 279-304.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "The use of computational cognitive models to improve questions on surveys and questionnaires",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Graesser",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kennedy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiemer-Hastings",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ottati",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Cognition and Survey Research",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "199--216",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Graesser, A.C., Kennedy, T., Wiemer-Hastings, P., & Ottati, V. (1999). The use of computational cognitive models to improve questions on surveys and questionnaires. In M. Sirken, D. Herrrnann, S. Schechter, N. Schwarz, J. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognition and Survey Research (pp. 199- 216). New York: John Wiley & Sons.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "QUAID: A questionnaire evaluation aid for survey methodologists",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Graesser",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiemer-Hastings",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kreuz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiemer-Hastings",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marquis",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Graesser, A.C., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Kreuz, R., Wiemer-Hastings, P., & Marquis, K. (in press). QUAID: A questionnaire evaluation aid for survey methodologists. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition",
"authors": [
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kintsch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Landauer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [
"T"
],
"last": "Dumais",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Psychological Review",
"volume": "104",
"issue": "",
"pages": "211--240",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Landauer, T.K., & Dumais, S.T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Mccawley",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1981,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "McCawley, J.D. (1981). Everything that linguists have always wanted to know about logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "The DP decision structure tree 1.2"
},
"TABREF0": {
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td>of</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Presupposition No presupposition</td></tr><tr><td>First word(s)</td><td>When VP</td><td>Initial or following</td></tr><tr><td/><td>What time</td><td>comma:</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Who VP</td><td>-is there</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Why</td><td>-are there</td></tr><tr><td/><td>How much</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>How many</td><td>Does / do NP have ...</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">How often etc. Will NP have ...</td></tr><tr><td/><td>How VP</td><td>Has / Have NP ...</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Where V NP</td><td>Is / are NP ...</td></tr><tr><td>Keywords</td><td>usually</td><td>ever</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Possessives:</td><td>any</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">mine, yours, anybody</td></tr><tr><td/><td>NP's</td><td>anything</td></tr><tr><td/><td>while</td><td>whether</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Indexicals:</td><td>if</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">this, these, such could, would</td></tr><tr><td>Specific</td><td>V infinitive</td><td/></tr><tr><td>constructions</td><td>when NP</td><td/></tr></table>",
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": ""
},
"TABREF1": {
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": ""
},
"TABREF2": {
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>Hit rate</td><td>False alarm rate</td><td>Recall</td><td>Precision</td><td>d'</td></tr><tr><td>P~j</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.66</td><td>0,74</td><td>0.50</td></tr><tr><td>Pcomo</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.72</td><td>0,50</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">All measures, except for precision, look</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">comparable or better in relation to Pco~,,</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">including d', which measures the actual power of</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">DP to discriminate questions with and without</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">presuppositions. Of course, picking a criterion</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">with better matches does not improve the</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">system's performance in itself.</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>",
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": ""
},
"TABREF3": {
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>Hit rate</td><td>False alarm rate</td><td>Recall</td><td>Precision</td><td>d'</td></tr><tr><td>Pmai</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.84</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>P~o,~p</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.52</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.46</td><td>1.3</td></tr></table>",
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": ""
}
}
}
} |