Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) 2018
DOI: 10.18653/v1/p18-1213
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling Naive Psychology of Characters in Simple Commonsense Stories

Abstract: Understanding a narrative requires reading between the lines and reasoning about the unspoken but obvious implications about events and people's mental states -a capability that is trivial for humans but remarkably hard for machines. To facilitate research addressing this challenge, we introduce a new annotation framework to explain naive psychology of story characters as fully-specified chains of mental states with respect to motivations and emotional reactions. Our work presents a new largescale dataset with… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
72
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(76 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
4
72
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our work is in line with studies attempting to identify relevant motives in texts (Ding and Riloff, 2018;Rashkin et al, 2018), aiming to equip machines with the ability to understand a more complete description of a situation and justify human decisions and actions. While Ding and Riloff (2018) and Rashkin et al (2018) specifically focus on predicate-argument tuples and artificial texts, respectively, our work analyzes real review sentences.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…Our work is in line with studies attempting to identify relevant motives in texts (Ding and Riloff, 2018;Rashkin et al, 2018), aiming to equip machines with the ability to understand a more complete description of a situation and justify human decisions and actions. While Ding and Riloff (2018) and Rashkin et al (2018) specifically focus on predicate-argument tuples and artificial texts, respectively, our work analyzes real review sentences.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…Data statistics is reported in Table 1. Rashkin et al (2018) report that there is low annotator agreement i.a. between the belonging and the approval class.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our task is to automatically predict human needs of story characters given a story context. In this task, following the setup of Rashkin et al (2018), we explain the probable reasons for the expression of emotions by predicting appropriate categories from two theories of psychology: Hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943) and basic motives (Reiss, 2002). The task is defined as a multi-label classification problem with five coarse-grained (Maslow) and 19 fine-grained (Reiss) categories, respectively (see Fig.…”
Section: Selecting and Ranking Commonsensementioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations