<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-1043">
  <Title>Evaluating and comparing three text-production techniques</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Thct'c arc many m{}re industrial proiccts in Analysis than in Natural l,anguagc (;cneration. Therclorc the bencl:ils {}f using applied N1 ,(; would a\]}pcal + a crucial issue. We have l}r{}vidcd a partial rCSl)onsc It} this issue by analysing the asscsslnent o\[&amp;quot; three different tcclmiqucs for producing multiscntential text (in this case, business reply letters).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In the lollowing section, we have describe{l tile three techniques under assessment: semi-automatic non-linguistic fill-in-the-blank intcrlhcing, atut(}matic linguistic-and-tentphtte hybrid gerlct'ation, and human wril:ing.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The third section deals with the black-b{}x mcthodol(}gy and qttality critcria used for tile aISSBSSIlICII\[, &amp;quot;\['lie lk)urth section descl+ibcs the results {}f the alsscssntcn\[.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The fiftll section givcs examl}les of letters prt~luccd by both the semi-autonutlic system, and the lilU_Btistic-and-tempIate hybrid system.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The hlst section analyses tile results of tile assessment.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>