Method for Aspect-Based Sentiment Annotation Using Rhetorical Analysis

This paper fills a gap in aspect-based sentiment analysis and aims to present a new method for preparing and analysing texts concerning opinion and generating user-friendly descriptive reports in natural language. We present a comprehensive set of techniques derived from Rhetorical Structure Theory and sentiment analysis to extract aspects from textual opinions and then build an abstractive summary of a set of opinions. Moreover, we propose aspect-aspect graphs to evaluate the importance of aspects and to filter out unimportant ones from the summary. Additionally, the paper presents a prototype solution of data flow with interesting and valuable results. The proposed method's results proved the high accuracy of aspect detection when applied to the gold standard dataset

Query-Based Summarization using Rhetorical Structure Theory

Research on Question Answering is focused mainly on classifying the question type and finding the answer. Presenting the answer in a way that suits the user’s needs has received little attention. This paper shows how existing question answering systems—which aim at finding precise answers to questions—can be improved by exploiting summarization techniques to extract more than just the answer from the document in which the answer resides. This is done using a graph search algorithm which searches for relevant sentences in the discourse structure, which is represented as a graph. The Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) is used to create a graph representation of a text document. The output is an extensive answer, which not only answers the question, but also gives the user an opportunity to assess the accuracy of the answer (is this what I am looking for?), and to find additional information that is related to the question, and which may satisfy an information need. This has been implemented in a working multimodal question answering system where it operates with two independently developed question answering modules

Hypotheses, evidence and relationships: The HypER approach for representing scientific knowledge claims

Biological knowledge is increasingly represented as a collection of (entity-relationship-entity) triplets. These are queried, mined, appended to papers, and published. However, this representation ignores the argumentation contained within a paper and the relationships between hypotheses, claims and evidence put forth in the article. In this paper, we propose an alternate view of the research article as a network of 'hypotheses and evidence'. Our knowledge representation focuses on scientific discourse as a rhetorical activity, which leads to a different direction in the development of tools and processes for modeling this discourse. We propose to extract knowledge from the article to allow the construction of a system where a specific scientific claim is connected, through trails of meaningful relationships, to experimental evidence. We discuss some current efforts and future plans in this area

Summarisation and visualisation of e-Health data repositories

At the centre of the Clinical e-Science Framework (CLEF) project is a repository of well organised, detailed clinical histories, encoded as data that will be available for use in clinical care and in-silico medical experiments. We describe a system that we have developed as part of the CLEF project, to perform the task of generating a diverse range of textual and graphical summaries of a patient’s clinical history from a data-encoded model, a chronicle, representing the record of the patient’s medical history. Although the focus of our current work is on cancer patients, the approach we describe is generalisable to a wide range of medical areas

A short survey of discourse representation models

With the advancement of technology and the wide adoption of ontologies as knowledge representation formats, in the last decade, a handful of models were proposed for the externalization of the rhetoric and argumentation captured within scientific publications. Conceptually, most of these models share a similar representation form of the scientific publication, i.e. as a series of interconnected elementary knowledge items. The main differences are given by the terminology used, the types of rhetorical and/or argumentation relations connecting the knowledge items and the foundational theories supporting these relations. This paper analyzes the state of the art and provides a concise comparative overview of the five most prominent discourse representation models, with the goal of sketching an unified model for discourse representation