Comparing bridging annotations across coreference resources is difficult, largely due to a lack of standardization across definitions and annotation schemas and narrow coverage of disparate text domains across resources. To alleviate domain coverage issues and consolidate schemas, we compare guidelines and use interpretable predictive models to examine the bridging instances annotated in the GUM, GENTLE and ARRAU corpora. Examining these cases, we find that there is a large difference in types of phenomena annotated as bridging. Beyond theoretical results, we release a harmonized, subcategorized version of the test sets of GUM, GENTLE and the ARRAU Wall Street Journal data to promote meaningful and reliable evaluation of bridging resolution across domains.
View on arXiv