Ana Brassard


2019

pdf bib
Diamonds in the Rough: Generating Fluent Sentences from Early-Stage Drafts for Academic Writing Assistance
Takumi Ito | Tatsuki Kuribayashi | Hayato Kobayashi | Ana Brassard | Masato Hagiwara | Jun Suzuki | Kentaro Inui
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language Generation

The writing process consists of several stages such as drafting, revising, editing, and proofreading. Studies on writing assistance, such as grammatical error correction (GEC), have mainly focused on sentence editing and proofreading, where surface-level issues such as typographical errors, spelling errors, or grammatical errors should be corrected. We broaden this focus to include the earlier revising stage, where sentences require adjustment to the information included or major rewriting and propose Sentence-level Revision (SentRev) as a new writing assistance task. Well-performing systems in this task can help inexperienced authors by producing fluent, complete sentences given their rough, incomplete drafts. We build a new freely available crowdsourced evaluation dataset consisting of incomplete sentences authored by non-native writers paired with their final versions extracted from published academic papers for developing and evaluating SentRev models. We also establish baseline performance on SentRev using our newly built evaluation dataset.

2018

pdf bib
TakeLab at SemEval-2018 Task12: Argument Reasoning Comprehension with Skip-Thought Vectors
Ana Brassard | Tin Kuculo | Filip Boltužić | Jan Šnajder
Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation

This paper describes our system for the SemEval-2018 Task 12: Argument Reasoning Comprehension Task. We utilize skip-thought vectors, sentence-level distributional vectors inspired by the popular word embeddings and the skip-gram model. We encode preprocessed sentences from the dataset into vectors, then perform a binary supervised classification of the warrant that justifies the use of the reason as support for the claim. We explore a few variations of the model, reaching 54.1% accuracy on the test set, which placed us 16th out of 22 teams participating in the task.