1 Introduction
-
DRS form:
[x,y,z]
|
---|
lan (x)
|
vui_vẻ (x)
|
con_trai (y)
|
học_cùng (x,y)
|
khoái_chí (y)
|
điểm_cao (z)
|
đu’ọ’c (y,z)
|
-
FOL form:
vui_vẻ (x)&con_trai (y)&
học_cùng (x,y)&
khoái_chí (y)&
điểm_cao (z)&
(y,z)]
.
-
Instances “lan”, “con trai” (the son) and “điểm cao” (high mark) by predicates which associated with variables
x, y
andz: lan (x), con_trai (y), điểm_cao (z)
. -
Actions and states of these instances through predicates which associated with variables
x, y, z
appropriately:vui_vẻ (x), học_cùng (x,y), khoái_chí (y), đu’ọ’c (y,z)
.
[predicate (1), predicate (2)]
and [predicate (2), predicate (3)]
in considered three predicates based on the sustainable priority factor which proposed by us. The pair having the higher priority will be used for generating the syntactic structure of a new Vietnamese sentence, then combined with lexicons for completing. The remaining predicate is handled in two ways: re-create the original Vietnamese sentence or combine consideration with next two predicates in the logical expression. The algorithm is performed based on our assumption that a paragraph has the natural quality if each sentence in this has the natural quality.2 Abstraction summarization literature review
2.1 Structured-based approach
2.1.1 Tree-based method
2.1.2 Template-based method
2.1.3 Ontology-based method
2.1.4 Lead and body phrase method
2.1.5 Rule-based method
2.2 Semantic-based approach
2.2.1 Multimodal semantic model
2.2.2 Information item-based method
2.2.3 Semantic graph-based method
3 Overview of paragraph summarization by generating reduced paragraph
4 Generation of summarizing paragraphs
-
Determine predicates representing actions or states.
-
Generate the syntactic structure of the new Vietnamese sentence based on the relationship of one pair of predicates.
-
Determine the relationship priority in comparison between two pairs of predicates.
4.1 Predicate characteristic structure
-
The first category is called action “intransitive”. The verbs belonging to this category indicate an action which associates to only one actor.
-
The second category is called action “transitive”. The verbs belonging to this category indicate an action which associates to one actor and one goal.
-
The third category is called state “status”. The verbs belonging to this category indicate existing temporary status of a subject.
-
The forth category is called state “property”. The verbs belonging to this category indicate a property inside a subject.
-
Component
S_Index
taking the value as an index (represented by one bound variable) indicates the instance taking the subject role. -
Component
O_Index
taking the value as an index (represented by one bound variable) indicates the instance taking the object role. -
Component \(\mathtt{{1{st}}\_Cat}\) taking the value as an index (represented by one bound variable) indicates the category at the first level: object/action/state.
-
Component \(\mathtt{{2{nd}}\_Cat}\) taking the value as an index (represented by one bound variable) indicates the category at the second level: proper/common/intransitive/transitive/status/property.
lan
| :={S_Index
\(\rightarrow \)
x ; O_Index ; \(\mathtt{1}{} \mathtt{st}\_\mathtt{Cat}\rightarrow \)
object ; \(\mathtt{2}{} \mathtt{nd}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
proper}
|
vui_vẻ
| :={S_Index
\(\rightarrow \)
x ; O_Index ; \(\mathtt{1}{} \mathtt{st}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
state ; \(\mathtt{2}{} \mathtt{nd}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
status}
|
con_trai
| :={S_Index
\(\rightarrow \)
y; O_Index ; \(\mathtt{1}{} \mathtt{st}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
object ; \(\mathtt{2}{} \mathtt{nd}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
common}
|
học_cùng
| :={S_Index
\(\rightarrow \)
x ; O_Index
\(\rightarrow \)
y ; \(\mathtt{1}{} \mathtt{st}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
action ; \(\mathtt{2}{} \mathtt{nd}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
transitive}
|
khoái_chí
| :={S_Index
\(\rightarrow \)
y ; O_Index ; \(\mathtt{1}^{\mathtt{st}}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
state ; \(\mathtt{2}{} \mathtt{nd}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
status}
|
điểm_cao
| :={S_Index
\(\rightarrow \)
z ; O_Index ; \(\mathtt{1}{} \mathtt{st}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
object ; \(\mathtt{2}{} \mathtt{nd}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
common}
|
×
| :={S_Index
\(\rightarrow \)
y ; O_Index
\(\rightarrow \)
z ; \(\mathtt{1}{} \mathtt{st}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
action ; \(\mathtt{2}\mathtt{nd}\)_Cat
\(\rightarrow \)
transitive}
|
O_List
consists of predicates representing instances, AS_List
consists of predicates representing actions or states. The main idea of this classification is based on the value of component \(\mathtt{1}{} \mathtt{st}\)_Cat
in each predicate. The classification algorithm:O_List
and AS_List
:-
O_List: lan, con_trai, điểm_cao
. -
AS_List: vui_vẻ, học_cùng,khoái_chí
, .×
4.2 Predicate relationships and sentence structure generation
-
Verbs indicating state status take the highest considering priority is (1).
-
Next, verbs indicating action intransitive and action transitive in turn take the considering priority are (2) and (3).
-
Lastly, verbs indicating state property take the lowest considering priority is (4).
Type | Meaning | Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)
| Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\)
|
---|---|---|---|
i |
\(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\) is performed so that can perform \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\)
| (2) | (2) |
(2) | (3) | ||
ii |
\(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\) is the cause of \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)
| (1) | (4) |
(1) | (2) | ||
(1) | (3) | ||
(2) | (4) | ||
(3) | (4) | ||
iii |
\(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\) is the consequence of \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)
| (4) | (1) |
(4) | (2) | ||
(4) | (3) | ||
(2) | (1) | ||
(3) | (1) | ||
(3) | (2) | ||
iv |
\(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\) and \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\) occur simultaneously | (4) | (4) |
(1) | (1) | ||
(3) | (3) |
-
Step 1 In turn determine predicates representing instances which have the relationship with each predicate \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\) and \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\). The relationship here is understood that component
S_Index
in the predicate indicating instance takes the value which is identical with the value of componentS_Index
orO_Index
of \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\) or \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\). Therefrom, construct two syntactic structures according to \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\) and \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\). Each this syntactic structure is the structure of one sentence in the source paragraph and belongs to one of two form:-
Case 1 Component \(\mathtt{{2{nd}}\_Cat}\) of predicate representing action or state Pas takes value “transitive”. There are two predicates representing instance which are Po1(x) and Po2(y) which have the relationship with Pas. The structure form is:$$\begin{aligned} \mathtt{Form}{\_}{} \mathtt{1} := \mathtt{{Po1 (x)}} + \mathtt{{Pas (x,y)}} + \mathtt{{Po2 (y)}} \end{aligned}$$
-
Case 2 Component \(\mathtt{2}\mathtt{nd}\)_
Cat
of predicate representing action or state Pas takes other values. There is one predicate representing instance which is Po1(x) which have the relationship with Pas. The structure form is:$$\begin{aligned} \mathtt{Form}{\_}{} \mathtt{2} := \mathtt{{Po1 (x)}} + \mathtt{{Pas (x,y)}}. \end{aligned}$$
-
-
Step 2 Merge two syntactic structures according to \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\) and \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\) to construct the syntactic structure of the new reduced Vietnamese sentence. The merging rule consists of the following steps:
-
Step 2.1 Add elements in the syntactic structure according to \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\) into the new structure.
-
Step 2.2 Add the relationship factor belonging to one of relationship types in Table 1 into the new structure.
-
Step 2.3 Determine the context is active or passive voice for the syntactic structure according to \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\).
-
Step 2.4 Add elements in the syntactic structure according to \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\) into the new structure.
-
-
Relationship type \(\langle \hbox {i}\rangle \) (Table 2)
Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)
| Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\)
| Syntactic structure |
---|---|---|
(2) | (2) |
\(\mathtt{{[Po1]}} + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{i}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)
|
(2) | (3) |
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}]+ \langle \mathtt{i}\rangle + [\mathtt{{Pas}_ j}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]\)
|
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{i}\rangle + ``{} \mathtt{is}\hbox {''} [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}] +``{} \mathtt{by}\hbox {''} + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]\)
|
-
Relationship type \(\langle \hbox {ii}\rangle \) (Table 8)
Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)
| Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\)
| Syntactic structure |
---|---|---|
(4) | (1) |
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] +\langle \mathtt{iii}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)
|
(4) | (2) |
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{iii}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)
|
(4) | (3) |
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{iii}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]\)
|
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] +\langle \mathtt{iii}\rangle + ``{} \mathtt{is}\hbox {''} + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]+ ``{} \mathtt{by}\hbox {''} + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]\)
| ||
(2) | (1) |
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{iii}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)
|
(3) | (1) |
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}] + \langle \mathtt{iii}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)
|
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}] + \langle \mathtt{iii}\rangle + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]+[\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)
| ||
(3) | (2) |
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]+ \langle \mathtt{iii}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)
|
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}] + \langle \mathtt{iii}\rangle + [\mathtt{{Po2}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)
|
-
Relationship type \(\langle \hbox {iii}\rangle \) (Table 3)
Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)
| Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\)
| Syntactic structure |
---|---|---|
(4) | (4) |
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{iv}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)
|
(1) | (1) |
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{iv}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)
|
(3) | (3) |
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}] + \langle \mathtt{iv}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]+ [\mathtt{{Po3}}]\)
|
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]+ \langle \mathtt{iv}\rangle + ``{} \mathtt{is}\hbox {''} +[\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}] + ``{} \mathtt{by}\hbox {''} + [\mathtt{{Po3}}]\)
| ||
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}] + \langle \mathtt{iv}\rangle + [\mathtt{{Po2}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}] + [\mathtt{{Po3}}]\)
| ||
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}] + \langle \mathtt{iv}\rangle + [\mathtt{{Po2}}] + ``{} \mathtt{is}\hbox {''} + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}] + ``{} \mathtt{by}\hbox {''} + [\mathtt{{Po3}}]\)
| ||
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{iv}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]\)
| ||
\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{iv}\rangle + ``{} \mathtt{is}\hbox {''} + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}] + ``{} \mathtt{by}\hbox {''} + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]\)
|
-
Relationship type \(\langle \hbox {iv}\rangle \) (Table 4).
Case | Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{{i-1}}\)
| Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)
| Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{{i+1}}\)
|
---|---|---|---|
1 |
\((X) = (1)\)
| (Y) |
\((Z) > (X)\)
|
2 |
\((X) = (2)\)
| (Y) |
\((Z) > (X)\)
|
3 |
\((X) = (3)\)
| (Y) |
\((Z) > (X)\)
|
Case | Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{{i-1}}\)
| Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)
| Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{{i+1}}\)
|
---|---|---|---|
1 |
\((X) = (4)\)
| (Y) |
\((Z) < (X)\)
|
2 |
\((X) = (3)\)
| (Y) |
\((Z) < (X)\)
|
3 |
\((X) = (2)\)
| (Y) |
\((Z) < (X)\)
|
4.3 The Vietnamese paragraph generation algorithm
AS_List
contains predicates representing actions or states and O_List
contains predicates representing instances (described in Sect. 4.1). The output of the algorithm is an ordered list S_StructureList
containing syntactic structures of sentences in the new paragraph.AS_List
. The algorithm compares the priority between two pairs \((\hbox {Pas}_{{i-1}}\) – \(\hbox {Pas}_{i})\) and \((\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)–\(\hbox {Pas}_{{i+1}})\) and generates the syntactic structure of the new Vietnamese sentence for the pair having higher priority. With the remaining predicate, the algorithm performs one of two ways: (i) construct the syntactic structure according to this predicate—is the structure of one sentence in the original paragraph; or (ii) consider this predicate with two next predicates in AS_List
.-
The priority of \((\hbox {Pas}_{{i-1}}\)–\(\hbox {Pas}_{i})\) is higher than the priority of \((\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)–\(\hbox {Pas}_{i+1})\) (Table 5)
-
Two priorities are equal (Table 7)
-
The priority of \((\hbox {Pas}_{{i-1}}\)–\(\hbox {Pas}_{i})\) is lower than the priority of \((\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)–\(\hbox {Pas}_{{i+1}})\) (Table 6).
S_StructureList
concretely as follows:-
Function \(\mathtt {check\_inter-sentential\_anapho}{} \mathtt{ric\_pronoun}(\mathtt{P}_{\mathtt{x}}, \mathtt{P}_\mathtt{y})\) is performed to examine the inter-sentential anaphoric pronoun relationship between two sentences. This function returns TRUE if there is one in four cases:
-
Component
S_Index
in \(\mathtt{P}_\mathtt{x}\) takes the value which is identical with the value of componentS_Index
in \(\mathtt{P}_{\mathtt{y}}\). -
Component
S_Index
in \(\mathtt{P}_\mathtt{x}\) takes the value which is identical with the value of componentO_Index
in \(\mathtt{P}_\mathtt{y}\). -
Component
O_Index
in \(\mathtt{P}_\mathtt{x}\) takes the value which is identical with the value of componentS_Index
in \(\mathtt{P}_\mathtt{y}\). -
Component
O_Index
in \(\mathtt{P}_\mathtt{x}\) takes the value which is identical with the value of componentO_Index
in \(\mathtt{P}_\mathtt{y}\).
-
-
Function \(\mathtt{summarize}(\mathtt{P}_\mathtt{x}, \mathtt{P_y})\) generates the syntactic structure of the new Vietnamese sentence for pair of predicates \({P}_{x}\), \({P}_{y}\).
-
Function
re_create
(\(\mathtt{P}_\mathtt{x})\) constructs the syntactic structure according to predicate \({P}_{x}\).
-
Relationship type \(\langle \hbox {i}\rangle \): “để” (English: for).
-
Relationship type \(\langle \hbox {ii}\rangle \): “vì” (English: because/because of).
-
Relationship type \(\langle \hbox {iii}\rangle \): “nên” (English: so).
-
Relationship type \(\langle \hbox {iv}\rangle \): “và” (English: and).
O_List
and AS_List
containing predicates of the logical expression in Sect. 1 (described in Sect. 4.1) as follows:-
\(n = \vert \)
AS_List
\(\vert \rightarrow \) 4; -
\(i = 2 < n\);
-
Consider three predicates:
-
\({P}_{1} =\)
vui_vẻ (x, state, status)
-
\({P}_{2} =\)
học_cúng (x, y, action, transitive)
-
\({P}_{3} =\)
khoái_chí (y, state, status)
.
-
-
Check inter-sentential anaphoric pronoun:
-
C_IAP_1 \(=\) TRUE because component
S_Index
in \({P}_{1}\) takes the value which is identical with the value of componentS_Index
in \({P}_{2}\). -
C_IAP_2 \(=\) TRUE because component
O_Index
in \({P}_{2}\) takes the value which is identical with the value of componentS_Index
in \({P}_{3}\).
-
Table 7Two priorities are equalCasePriority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{{i-1}}\)Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{{i+1}}\)1(X)(Y)\((Z) = (X)\)Table 8The syntactic structure of the new reduced Vietnamese sentence according to relationship type \(\langle \hbox {ii}\rangle \)Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{i}\)Priority of \(\hbox {Pas}_{j}\)Syntactic structure(1)(4)\(\mathtt{{[Po1]}} + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{ii}\rangle +[\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)(1)(2)\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}]+\langle \mathtt{ii}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)(1)(3)\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{ii}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]+[\mathtt{{Po2}}]\)\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] +[\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] +\langle \mathtt{ii}\rangle + ``{} \mathtt{is}\hbox {''} [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}] + ``{} \mathtt{by}\hbox {''} + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]\)(2)(4)\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + \langle \mathtt{ii}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)(3)(4)\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]+ \langle \mathtt{ii}\rangle + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)\([\mathtt{{Po1}}] + [\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{i}] + [\mathtt{{Po2}}] + \langle \mathtt{ii}\rangle + [\mathtt{{Po2}}]+[\mathtt{Pas}_\mathtt{j}]\)Table 9The testing resultsCaseNumber/No1/No2/No3The number (No1) of logical expressions500The number (No2) of new reduced paragraphs4280.856The number (No3) of new reduced paragraphs satisfying mark 1 of the first criteria3970.7940.928The number (No4) of new reduced paragraphs satisfying mark 1 of the second criteria1360.3180.343The number (No5) of new reduced paragraphs satisfying mark 2 of the second criteria2340.5470.589-
According to Table 7: level_priority(\({P}_{1}\), \({P}_{2}) =\) level_priority(\({P}_{2}\), \({P}_{3})\).
-
new_structure \(=\) summarize(\({P}_{1}\), \({P}_{2})\).
-
According to Table 8: new_structure \(=\)
[lan (x)]+[vui_vẻ(v)] +
\(\mathtt{<}\)ii
\(\mathtt{>}\)+ [học_
cùng (x, y)] + [con_trai (y)]
.
-
-
Put new_structure into
S_StructureList
; -
\(i = i + 2 \rightarrow 4\);
-
-
\(i = 4 = n\);
-
Consider two predicates:
-
\({P}_{3} =\)
khoái_chí (y, state, status)
-
\({P}_{4} =\)
(y, z, action,
transitive)
.×
-
-
Check inter-sentential anaphoric pronoun:
-
C_IAP \(=\) TRUE because component
S_Index
in \({P}_{3}\) takes the value which is identical with the value of componentS_Index
in \({P}_{4}\).
-
-
new_structure \(=\) summarize(\({P}_{3}\), \({P}_{4})\).
-
According to Table 8: structure \(=\)
[con_trai (y)] + [khoái_chí (y)] +
\( \mathtt{<}\)ii
\(\mathtt{>}\)+ [đu’ọ’c (y, z)] + [điểm_cao(z)]
.
-
-
Put new_structure into
S_StructureList
;
-
-
Apply Algorithm 3, we obtain the result is the new reduced Vietnamese paragraph:
5 Experiment and analysis
-
The first criterion is the semantic correctness with two marks: 1—correctness; 0—not correctness. This criterion is evaluated based on manually considering that the new reduced paragraph correctly summarizes the meaning of the original paragraph or not.
-
The second criteria are the universality in Vietnamese with three marks: 2—universality if every sentences in the new reduced paragraph have the universality; 1—acceptable if there is one sentence in the new reduced paragraph which does not totally have the universality; 0—do not have the universality when there are two or more sentences which do not have the universality.
-
Each paragraph is composed of 3–5 Vietnamese sentences having simple structure.
-
If there are three or more consecutive sentences in which each pair of sentences does not have the inter-sentential anaphoric pronoun relationship, then the paragraph is fairly trivial to summary. Therefore, we require at least at the second and the forth sentence there are the occurrences of the anaphoric pronouns.
-
With the central is Algorithm 2, the solution showed the effectiveness in generating new reduced paragraphs which satisfy the above criteria.
-
There are some limitations with causes:
-
Because there is no additional factor showing the context about space and time in which the fact happened, therefore, we determined the inter-sentential relationships based on the assumption in Sect. 2.2. This leads to the generated paragraph may not have totally semantic correctness or universality in a reality context.
-
In some logical expressions, there are predicates representing actions or states which have component
S_Index
orO_Index
taking the value which does not indicate the correct object. This leads to cannot generate or the new generated paragraph does not have the semantic correctness.
-