The reviewing procedure has been identified as one of the major issues in the current situation of the NLP field. While it is implicitly assumed that junior researcher learn reviewing during their PhD project, this might not always be the case. Additionally, with the growing NLP community and the efforts in the context of widening the NLP community, researchers joining the field might not have the opportunity to practise reviewing. This tutorial fills in this gap by providing an opportunity to learn the basics of reviewing. Also more experienced researchers might find this tutorial interesting to revise their reviewing procedure.

Dialogue summarization is a long-standing task in the field of NLP, and several data sets with dialogues and associated human-written summaries of different styles exist. However, it is unclear for which type of dialogue which type of summary is most appropriate. For this reason, we apply a linguistic model of dialogue types to derive matching summary items and NLP tasks. This allows us to map existing dialogue summarization data sets into this model and identify gaps and potential directions for future work. As part of this process, we also provide an extensive overview of existing dialogue summarization data sets.

So far work on automatic summarization has dealt primarily with English data. Accordingly, evaluation methods were primarily developed with this language in mind. In our work, we present experiments of adapting available evaluation methods such as ROUGE and PYRAMID to non-English data. We base our experiments on various English and non-English homogeneous benchmark data sets as well as a non-English heterogeneous data set. Our results indicate that ROUGE can indeed be adapted to non-English data – both homogeneous and heterogeneous. Using a recent implementation of performing an automatic PYRAMID evaluation, we also show its adaptability to non-English data.

Automatic evaluation of summarization focuses on developing a metric to represent the quality of the resulting text. However, text qualityis represented in a variety of dimensions ranging from grammaticality to readability and coherence. In our work, we analyze the depen-dencies between a variety of quality dimensions on automatically created multi-document summaries and which dimensions automaticevaluation metrics such as ROUGE, PEAK or JSD are able to capture. Our results indicate that variants of ROUGE are correlated tovarious quality dimensions and that some automatic summarization methods achieve higher quality summaries than others with respectto individual summary quality dimensions. Our results also indicate that differentiating between quality dimensions facilitates inspectionand fine-grained comparison of summarization methods and its characteristics. We make the data from our two summarization qualityevaluation experiments publicly available in order to facilitate the future development of specialized automatic evaluation methods.

This tutorial will cover the theory and practice of reviewing research in natural language processing. Heavy reviewing burdens on natural language processing researchers have made it clear that our community needs to increase the size of our pool of potential reviewers. Simultaneously, notable “false negatives”---rejection by our conferences of work that was later shown to be tremendously important after acceptance by other conferences—have raised awareness of the fact that our reviewing practices leave something to be desired. We do not often talk about “false positives” with respect to conference papers, but leaders in the field have noted that we seem to have a publication bias towards papers that report high performance, with perhaps not much else of interest in them. It need not be this way. Reviewing is a learnable skill, and you will learn it here via lectures and a considerable amount of hands-on practice.

We present initial experiments to evaluate the performance of tasks such as Part of Speech Tagging on data corrupted by Optical Character Recognition (OCR). Our results, based on English and German data, using artificial experiments as well as initial real OCRed data indicate that already a small drop in OCR quality considerably increases the error rates, which would have a significant impact on subsequent processing steps.

With recent efforts in drawing attention to the task of replicating and/or reproducing results, for example in the context of COLING 2018 and various LREC workshops, the question arises how the NLP community views the topic of replicability in general. Using a survey, in which we involve members of the NLP community, we investigate how our community perceives this topic, its relevance and options for improvement. Based on over two hundred participants, the survey results confirm earlier observations, that successful reproducibility requires more than having access to code and data. Additionally, the results show that the topic has to be tackled from the authors’, reviewers’ and community’s side.

We present results on a quantitative analysis of publications in the NLP domain on collecting, publishing and availability of research data. We find that a wide range of publications rely on data crawled from the web, but few give details on how potentially sensitive data was treated. Additionally, we find that while links to repositories of data are given, they often do not work even a short time after publication. We put together several suggestions on how to improve this situation based on publications from the NLP domain, but also other research areas.

Coherent extracts are a novel type of summary combining the advantages of manually created abstractive summaries, which are fluent but difficult to evaluate, and low-quality automatically created extractive summaries, which lack coherence and structure. We use a corpus of heterogeneous documents to address the issue that information seekers usually face – a variety of different types of information sources. We directly extract information from these, but minimally redact and meaningfully order it to form a coherent text. Our qualitative and quantitative evaluations show that quantitative results are not sufficient to judge the quality of a summary and that other quality criteria, such as coherence, should also be taken into account. We find that our manually created corpus is of high quality and that it has the potential to bridge the gap between reference corpora of abstracts and automatic methods producing extracts. Our corpus is available to the research community for further development.

In this paper we investigate the coverage of the two knowledge sources WordNet and Wikipedia for the task of bridging resolution. We report on an annotation experiment which yielded pairs of bridging anaphors and their antecedents in spoken multi-party dialog. Manual inspection of the two knowledge sources showed that, with some interesting exceptions, Wikipedia is superior to WordNet when it comes to the coverage of information necessary to resolve the bridging anaphors in our data set. We further describe a simple procedure for the automatic extraction of the required knowledge from Wikipedia by means of an API, and discuss some of the implications of the procedure’s performance.

We present work on a three-stage system to detect and classify disfluencies in multi party dialogues. The system consists of a regular expression based module and two machine learning based modules. The results are compared to other work on multi party dialogues and we show that our system outperforms previously reported ones.

We present a topic boundary detection method that searches for connections between sequences of utterances in multi party dialogues. The connections are established based on word identity. We compare our method to a state-of-the art automatic Topic boundary detection method that was also used on multi party dialogues. We checked various methods of preprocessing of the data, including stemming, lemmatization and stopword filtering with a text-based as well as speech-based stopword lists. Using standard evaluation methods we found that our method outperformed the state-of-the art method.

We used four Part-of-Speech taggers, which are available for research purposes and were originally trained on text to tag a corpus of transcribed multiparty spoken dialogues. The assigned tags were then manually corrected. The correction was first used to evaluate the four taggers, then to retrain them. Despite limited resources in time, money and annotators we reached results comparable to those reported for the taggers on text. Based on our experience we present guidelines to produce reliably POS tagged corpora of new domains.