3.2.1. Data preparation and preprocessing

The purpose of preprocessing is to create two ordered lists, one of all the tokens in the story and another of important entities that we want to detect in the story. These two lists become our $x$ and $y$ axes, respectively. We prepare the data by coreferencing the stories by hand to ensure that any mention of an entity as a pronoun or other moniker is recognized as that same entity within the text. For details on the coreferencing process and why we choose to do this by hand instead of using available NLP toolkits, please refer to Section A.1.2. We do, however, conduct experiments using a coreference resolution library for comparison. An NLP pipeline then handles tokenization, tagging parts of speech, and then running NER which identifies names of people, places, and organizations as well as dates and other text with specific formats. For the purposes of this research, we choose only from the list generated by NER those entity types that correlate to actors, objects, and locations in a text that could potentially have relevance to the plot. We append to this list objects and common pronouns that are missed by NER. A properly coreferenced story replaces most of these pronouns with what they reference, but we include them for situations in which there are entities without proper names or labels that can be coreferenced. The first-person pronouns "I’"and "me" are particularly important in first-person narratives in which the speaker’s name is not given and thus cannot be coreferenced to something recognizable by NER. See Appendix B for the complete description of what types of entities are chosen.

3.2.2. Entity plotting and activity

Once the system generates the list of entities, it locates them within the text and gives an $x$ -coordinate corresponding to their narrative order location by token index and provides a $y$ -coordinate according to the order of that entity’s first appearance within the text. We remove from the list those entities that appear only once or twice within the entirety of the text to reduce clutter and under the assumption that if it appears that infrequently, it is not as important to the narrative. We then plot these $(x,y)$ coordinates on a Cartesian plane. Every $y$ -coordinate will have three or more points corresponding to how many times the associated entity appears in the text. Every $x$ -coordinate has either one or no points depending on whether or not that specific token is equivalent to one of the entities in $\Phi$ , creating gaps in the $x$ -coordinates. Large gaps appear when the text uses wording that does not involve any of the entities we are tracking, enabling a concept of entity density, which we call entity activity, defined as a measure of how often entities appear in a section of the text. High entity activity means that a section of text has many appearances of entities, and low entity activity means there are few entity appearances in that section of text.

We do not quantify what level of entity activity is considered high or low because it changes depending on the text. For example, a story that naturally has a lot of entity mentions in the text only has high entity activity if there is a spike, meaning that even more entities are present in that section of text than usual. Low entity activity works the same way. A story with naturally many entity mentions may have low entity activity values that are higher than another story with fewer entity mentions overall. Those low entity activity values in the first text are still considered low in relation to that text even if they are higher than the entity activity values of a different story.

We can now create an entity activity line measuring frequency of entity appearance as the story progresses. We create this line by projecting all coordinates onto the $x$ -axis and then generating a Gaussian curve for each entity centered at the $x$ -coordinate of that entity, creating a distribution overlap of entity positions that are then summed together to create a density curve. The more entities that appear near each other in the text, the more overlap and the higher the value of the curve at that point. The standard deviation, or $\sigma$ , of the Gaussian directly affects how smooth or noisy the activity line is. The smaller the $\sigma$ value, the steeper the fluctuations in the line, and thus, the more information that is present. The larger the $\sigma$ value, the smoother the line, and thus the less information that is present. See Figure 2 for an example illustration of the summation of Gaussian curves at different values of $\sigma$ . Because this line helps determine which clustering is chosen as the best (explained in Section 3.2.3), we must first determine the best possible $\sigma$ value for our needs.

Figure 2.

Example illustration of the summation of Gaussian curves. Large dots are the entity locations on the horizontal axis. The dotted curves are the individual Gaussian curves centered at the x-coordinates of the entities. The solid line is the summation of the Gaussian Curves. Figure (a) through (c) show increases of the standard deviation, $\sigma$ , and how it affects the smoothness of the curve.

At first, we sought a constant $\sigma$ value that is optimal for all stories, but initial tests showed that stories of different lengths need different $\sigma$ values. To determine what value for $\sigma$ is best, we test values of $\sigma = n/d$ where $d \in \{5..2000\}$ is the range of divisors we are testing and $n$ is the number of tokens in the story. Figure 3 shows the activity line for different values of $\sigma$ for Leiningen Versus the Ants (Stephenson, Reference Stephenson1972). We also translate the activity line to a heat map that shows entity activity level as a color gradient from blue (low activity) to yellow (high activity) for better human readability. The number in parentheses in the upper left corner of the activity line is the divisor, $d$ . The greater the divisor, the smaller the $\sigma$ value, and in turn the thinner the Gaussian and noisier the activity line.

Figure 3.

Entity activity lines and corresponding heat maps for Leiningen Versus the Ants (Stephenson, Reference Stephenson1972) for six different values of smoothing, from extremely wide (top plot) to very narrow (bottom plot) for the full length of the story (10050 tokens). This smoothing aspect is characterized by the size of the standard deviation of the Gaussian convolution kernel.

The divisor is simply a hyperparameter that must be chosen prior to computation, and the optimal value may change depending on what stories are used when running the system. We need a value for $d$ that provides sufficient information for the clustering algorithm to make informed decisions while at the same time not providing so much information that the data becomes too noisy to determine which clustering is best. Figure 4 reveals a trend where increasing $d$ improves the quality of clustering selection (and therefore scene partitioning) up until a point. After reaching this point, the activity line becomes too noisy, and so quality starts to drop, that is the scene partitioning error increases. The $d$ value which provides the best selection quality (the lowest error) for the stories used in this research resides between the values of 300 and 400. In the end, we select $d=400$ , making $\sigma = n/400$ with $n$ being the number of tokens in the story.

Figure 4.

Average error, over all eight stories in the corpus considered for this study, of scene partitioning as the divisor, $d$ , of the variance of the Gaussian convolution kernel increases. Lowest error occurs when this hyperparameter $d$ is between about 300 and 400.

3.2.3. Clustering and scene partitioning

Next, we cluster segments of the text into scenes based around entity activity. We use a single-dimensional mean shift algorithm variant for this purpose. Mean shift uses the density gradient of data coordinates to attract data points together, letting the data points climb the gradient slope to where the points are densest. Those points that converge on the same gradient peak are included in the same cluster. A bandwidth value sets the distance of attraction for the points, determining the number of clusters created. We cluster unidimensionally around the $x$ -coordinate. The assumption motivating this method is that the more entities that are near each other in the text, the more these entities are interacting within the story, and scenes are therefore evident by the presence and interaction of these entities.

We use clustering instead of calculating local maxima of the activity line due to the nature of the curve’s creation producing many local maxima and minima, far more than there are scenes in the story. Using a mean shift clustering method, the entities converge into clusters centered on the largest grouping of nearby maxima. We calculate the borders between the clusters at half the distance between the nearest two entities in neighboring clusters, creating a clean division between clusters because they are clustered unidimensionally.

The size of the bandwidth directly affects the number of clusters. Since clusters represent scenes, we iteratively adjust the bandwidth and run our mean shift algorithm, saving every unique clustering that gives us our desired number of scenes. We assume the number of scenes to be known a priori so that we may better assess how informative entity density is about the placement of scene boundaries without conflating the problem with another difficult task of determining scene existence. We must then determine which of these clusters is the best for that story and use the entity activity line for this purpose. We have two hypotheses:

1. 1. Since scenes are denoted by entity presence and interaction which results in high entity activity, scene transitions are represented by areas of local minima in the activity graph where entity appearance is not as frequent.

2. 2. When scenes transition, the new scene must be set up, explaining to the reader who is involved and the setting of the scene. Involved entities are introduced quickly in the text at these locations, causing a small spike in entity activity, meaning scene transitions are denoted by areas of local maxima in the activity graph.

We test both these hypotheses, saving the best cluster orientation where the $x$ -coordinates of the cluster partitions have the lowest average activity value from the activity line for the first hypothesis, and saving the best cluster orientation where the $x$ -coordinates of the cluster partitions have the highest average activity value for the second hypothesis. This creates two possible scene partitions for the story.

3.2.4. Ground truth annotation

To create a ground truth comparison for scene partitioning, two human annotators per source text read and select a token location that can then be matched to an $x$ -coordinate for each scene transition (the division between the scenes). We have two annotators per source text for quality control purposes to ensure the validity of the annotation. See Section A.2.2 for more explanation on the annotation process. We store these $x$ -coordinates in an array that can then be compared with the cluster boundaries to see how well the clustering partitions the source text into scenes.

There is no need for ground truth annotation for the scatter plot itself. Correctness for the scatter plot (i.e., the proper location of each individual $(x,y)$ coordinate) is easily measurable by finding a token representing an entity in the text and checking whether there is an associated point in the scatter plot. The accuracy of the scatter plot may seem obvious so long as the system itself plots each entity coordinate correctly. Indeed, when comparing each token in the source text where an entity appears in the output scatter plot, the coordinate matches 100% of the time, so we spend no time in the results discussing the accuracy of plotting the coordinates.

3.3.1. The output

Figure 5 shows the output of the Scatter Plot of Entities for the short story, To Build a Fire (London, Reference London1902/2007). Two visuals are included in the output, with the entity scatter plot on top and the entity activity on bottom. On the scatter plot, the $x$ -axis is the narrative order of tokens in the source text, so it represents the location of each entity in the text. Each tick on the $y$ -axis represents a unique entity in the order that entity is first introduced in the text. Like the scatter plot, the entity activity’s $x$ -axis is the location within the text by token. The $y$ -axis is the entity activity determined by the summation of the overlapping Gaussian curves. Included just below the entity activity plot is the corresponding heat map where blue is low entity activity and yellow is high activity. The red lines running vertically through each plot indicate a partition of the tokens into clusters, where the system believes the scene transitions are located. The blue lines are the ground truth transitions or borders between the scenes.

Figure 5.

Entity scatter plot (top) and corresponding entity activity (bottom) for the short story To Build a Fire (London, Reference London1902/2007). Story entities are plotted as black dots, where the x-value (i.e., along the horizontal axis) is the location in the story, and the y-value (i.e., along the vertical axis) is the order of the entity’s first appearance. Vertical red lines show the cluster partitions. Vertical blue lines show the ground truth scene transitions.

3.3.2. Point-wise dissimilarity evaluation metric

To evaluate the scene partitioning created by the clustering, we need a metric that does not require a foreknown classification matching of which scene partition in the output pairs with which scene partition in the ground truth, since a scene boundary may be missed or a scene in the ground truth may be split into multiple scenes in the output. The metric also cannot require perfect alignment but instead provides a better score the closer in alignment to the ground truth the output is. The F1 score fails to satisfy both requirements. WindowDiff (Pevzner and Hearst, Reference Pevzner and Hearst2002) is an evaluation metric designed for single-category linear tiling of the full continuum, much like our problem, but it requires the setting of a rolling window size $k$ , and an arbitrary hyperparameter. This measure is useful for comparison between different partitions of the same length set or continuum, but it does not allow for equal comparison between partitions of different length data. This led us to create the Point-wise Dissimilarity Evaluation Metric.

Recall that a partition of a set is collectively exhaustive, mutually exclusive subsets of a given set. In our case, the set of interest is the set of tokens, $T$ , which we define back in Section 3.1 as containing the integer indices of all tokens in narrative order from $0$ to $n$ , $n$ being the last token.

Here, we are interested in comparing two partitions, $P_O$ and $P_G$ where $P_O$ is the partition generated by the system output and $P_G$ is the ground truth partition characterizing how the text is actually divided into scenes. Without loss of generality, let $X$ be the larger of the two partitions and $Y$ be the smaller (if they are equal-sized let $X$ represent $P_G$ ). Similarly, let $\ell$ be the number of subsets in $X$ (the number of scenes) and $s$ be the number of subsets in $Y$ . Furthermore, for any $i^{th}$ element of $X$ , $X_i$ , or $Y$ , $Y_i$ , let $\overline{x_i} \;:\!=\; \max{\!(X_i)}$ , and $\overline{y_i} \;:\!=\; \max{\!(Y_i)}$ . Recall that since $X$ and $Y$ are partitions of sets of contiguous integers, the $i^{th}$ element of such a partition is a subset of integers, which always has a maximum value. This maximum value then becomes the value of $\overline{x_i}$ or $\overline{y_i}$ . We can now define the point-wise error as follows:

(1) \begin{equation} \textit{error}=\frac{1}{n}\sum _{i=1}^{\ell }\min _{j\in \{1,\dots,s\}}\big |\overline{x_i}-\overline{y_j}\big | \end{equation}

This error looks at the boundaries in each element in the partition with most scenes and finds the closest boundary in the other partition, calculates the difference between these two boundaries, aggregates the error over all closest comparisons, and then normalizes over the number of tokens to enable comparison of the error between stories of different lengths. The closer to zero the Point-wise Dissimilarity error is, the more accurate the partitions of $P_O$ are to $P_G$ are. When $P_O$ and $P_G$ have the same number of scene partitions, the worst error we can expect is $1.0$ . If additionally $P_G$ has even-length partitions, and $P_O$ is initialized with random partition lengths, on average the error will be $0.5$ , which we see as the worst feasible error for our tests.

3.3.3. Evaluation results

We collect five different error measurements, three as a baseline for comparison and two corresponding to our hypotheses of how entity activity could mark a transition between scenes. We create the first baseline, the even-split partitions, by dividing the text into a number of even-length scenes. We create the second baseline, the randomized partitions, by dividing the text into random-length partitions, and we repeat this 100 times to get an average error. Our purpose in including these two baselines is to reveal fundamental aspects of the nature of the novel task of scene segmentation in narrative. These two baselines can be seen as “bookends” of a spectrum of solution techniques, one end being deterministic and the other being stochastic, using only the information about the expected or desired number of scenes in the story:

• At one end, we consider a completely deterministic approach of simply partitioning the text into N equally sized scenes, the even-split partition. If this completely naive approach performs well over a large corpus, then presumably the scene segmentation problem is not as difficult as we might have first thought, hinging only on discovering the number of scenes in the story.

• At the other end of the spectrum, we adopt a completely stochastic approach, randomly choosing N-1 locations in the text to partition it into N scenes. Again, this approach only uses knowledge of the number of scenes, but in an entirely different way than the deterministic approach above.

A corpus that has a high average even-split score will not have a high random partition score, and vice versa. With a high even-split score, scenes within a story are expected to be relatively equal in length, while corpora with high random partition scores will have a wide variety of scene sizes within each story (some large and other small). These two baselines add insight into the nature of the particular scene segmentation problem we address through the Scatter Plot of Entities by providing guardrails from which we can better interpret the performance scores of our solution to this problem. Some stories can approach a solution to the problem by simply chopping the text into equal-sized chunks, but others—even with knowledge of the number of scenes—require more information to get the segmentation right. As one considers the performance of our solution on a particular story, we think they should have insight into the degree to which that story belongs to the one category or the other.

Our third baseline, Texttiling (Hearst, Reference Hearst1997), provides a comparison between a topical approach to story partitioning and our density-based approach which lacks the need to know any topical information about the source text. To match our problem setup, the Texttiling also produces a number of partitions matching the number of scenes so that the comparisons will be equal.

Table 2 shows the error calculations for the partitioning. Bold numbers highlight the lowest error for that story. Low-activity partitions select scene partitions where the partition borders have on average the lowest entity activity. High-activity partitions select scene partitions where borders on average have the highest scene activity. Remember that the number of partitions of the story for each baseline and test is the same. The only way the resulting number of scenes would differ is if there is an output partitioning that includes an empty partition, meaning that the mean shift clustering algorithm created an empty cluster. Averaging over the stories (taking the column average, shown in the bottom row of Table 2), our strongest baseline, even-split, obtains a point-wise dissimilarity error score of 0.261. Low-activity partitions perform near-equivalently at 0.262. High-activity partitions perform best with an average point-wise dissimilarity error score of 0.242. Texttiling’s topical approach produces an error score of 0.293, worse than both even-split and low-activity. To assess the feasibility of fully automating the process of Scatter Plot of Entities creation, we use the best-performing method of high-activity partitions and run additional experiments on each story using AllenNLP’s coreference resolution library (Gardner et al., Reference Gardner, Grus, Neumann, Tafjord, Dasigi, Liu, Peters, Schmitz and Zettlemoyer2018) to see how well it performs in comparison with our hand-coreferencing. The average point-wise dissimilarity score over all stories for high-activity partitions using AllenNLP’s library coreference resolution toolkit is 0.266, worse than our best baseline. In addition to our point-wise dissimilarity score, we also calculated the overall F1 scores, not on the scene boundaries but on the overlap of the matched partitions. Even-split partitioning has an F1 score of 0.603. The Scatter Plot of Entities obtains an F1 score of 0.635 for high-activity partitioning (precision 0.775 and recall 0.549). Using AllenNLP’s coreference resolution toolkit with high-activity partitioning results in a worse F1 score of 0.579 (precision 0.764 and recall 0.475).

Table 2.

Scene partitioning error for the Scatter Plot of entities. Bold numbers highlight the method with lowest error for that story. For the averages over all stories, bold represents the partitioning method that results in overall best scene partitioning according to the point-wise dissimilarity evaluation metric.

3.4.1. Scene partitioning

Our first hypothesis that scene transitions are denoted by locations of low entity activity in the story does not hold up well according to Table 2, whereas our second hypothesis performs the best overall, obtaining the lowest error for all but two stories. The success of the second hypothesis does not mean that our first hypothesis is false. Figure 6 shows the ground truth scene partitions overlayed on the entity activity lines. Of the 140 combined scene transitions for all 8 stories, 83 of them land on or near local maxima, 41 land on or near local minima, and 16 are undecidable (about midway between local a local maxima and minima). These results give supporting evidence that high entity activity hints at scene location and that small spikes in local entity activity are a common marker for scene transitions.

Figure 6.

Ground truth scene partitioning for each story, shown on the entity activity lines. The vertical blue bars are the divisions between the scenes.

The two exceptions in Table 2 that have lower partitioning error on tests other than high entity activity are special cases. The first exception, The Lion King, has a much higher percentage of scene transitions at or near local minima (17 out of 29 scene transitions) than the other stories. Given this pattern, we would expect the error for low-activity partitions to be lower than high-activity partitions in the table, but that is not the case. We believe this is because the lowest of the local minima in the activity line is within scenes and far from the ground truth scene transitions. By trying to find clusterings where the partition borders land in these locations, the partitions get further from the ground truth. In the end, even-split partitions have the lowest error, but only by a very small margin ( $0.2334$ for even-split compared to $0.235$ for high-activity).

The second exception is the most peculiar, A Sound of Thunder. The Texttiling baseline had the lowest out of all the error measurements for any story, and randomized scene partitioning had the next lowest error for the story. Because Texttiling is a topic-based text segmentation algorithm, it performs better on stories that have drastically different thematic topics between scenes. The first and last scenes take place in the present while the long scene in the middle takes place in the ancient past. This makes differentiating between scenes by topic much easier as opposed to To Build A Fire which is topically very monochrome, resulting in almost the same error from Texttiling as randomly partitioning the text. A Sound of Thunder also provides a perfect example of why inconsistent scene lengths are such a great weakness. The beginning and ending scenes, which take place in the present time, are very short, whereas the middle scene, which takes place in the past, takes up nearly 60% of the story. The drastic difference between the scene lengths conflicts with the mean shift clustering algorithm’s bandwidth. As mentioned before, the bandwidth determines the distance of attraction to cluster the entities together, determining the size and number of clusters. If a scene is much larger than the bandwidth, the system forces that scene to split. The Scatter Plot of Entities places the partitions closer to center in this story because the bandwidth can grow only so large to create a partition into three scenes. The scenes end up becoming near equal in length, increasing error. When placing randomized partitions, there is a much higher chance of one being placed close to the two ground truth scene partitions, so when averaging over 100 randomized three-scene partitions, the likelihood of lower error for a large number of them is higher. In general, much of the partitioning error comes from scenes being much longer or shorter than the mean shift clustering bandwidth—a common issue for all stories in our study, not just A Sound of Thunder.

3.4.2. Marking locations of plot-importance

The entity activity line and its corresponding heat map give us a clear visual of locations of high entity activity. The system’s best standard deviation, $\sigma$ , for the Gaussians creates a noisy activity line that is difficult for a human to use to determine general locations of high entity activity. However, if we increase $\sigma$ to smooth out the activity lines, we find a common pattern in that the areas of higher entity activity often correspond to locations of higher plot-importance in our chosen stories.

Figure 7 shows the corresponding heat maps for three stories where $\sigma$ has been increased. We can see near the end of each story that the climax shows up yellow, which shows they have high entity activity. In addition to climaxes, there are often locations within a story that are similarly plot-important but do not have the finality of a climax. Such moments, which are often called sub-climaxes or crisis points (Gardner, Reference Gardner1991), show up as yellow in the heat map just like climaxes.

Figure 7.

Heat map for three representative stories. The areas of strongest yellow (high entity activity) tend to be the most plot-important locations in these stories. Independent analysis verifies that the climax of each story corresponds to the rightmost bright yellow region for these examples, although in general, it may correspond to other bright patches.

In “Falling,” the strongest yellow mark in the middle of the story is a crisis point in which the main character shows the dystopian nature of the colony to the secondary main character. The climax, marked in yellow at the end of the story, is an assassination attempt against the main character. Similarly in Leiningen Versus the Ants, the area of high entity activity in the middle of the story is the moment when the ants begin overrunning the plantation. The climax in yellow shows the location where Leiningen must flood his plantation. Lastly in “Observer 4: Legends,” the climactic battle, shown as the only location of high entity activity, appears relatively earlier because the resolution and denouement of this story is longer. Though not all stories follow the pattern of high entity activity equating plot-importance, and it is possible for a story to have a climax with low entity activity, the pattern is common enough to be worthy of highlighting.

3.4.3. Identifying the most influential entities

Although the scatter plot is used for clustering and scene partitioning, on its own it gives us detailed information on the entities of the story. In Figure 8, we see that the introduction of entities follows a nearly logarithmic curve. As the story progresses, fewer and fewer new entities are introduced, and by the one-third to midway mark, most if not all the prominent entities have been introduced. This pattern of entity introduction is a common trend that all eight of our stories follow, although The Lion King does introduce two major characters, Timone and Pumba, a little past the midway point, so there are exceptions.

Figure 8.

Scatter Plot of Entities for the short story, “Falling” (DeBuse, Reference DeBuse2013). The most influential entities are entities 0, 10, and 53, visible by the near-solid horizontal dotted lines. Entities 0 and 10 are the male and female leads of the story, and entity 53 is a secondary, supporting character. The output partitions (red vertical lines) and the ground truth partitions (blue vertical lines) show by their proximity that the system also does a fairly good job partitioning this story into scenes.

Using the scatter plot, we can also see which entities are the most prominent at a glance, namely those that create near-solid horizontal dotted lines. The densest dotted lines indicate scenes where that entity is actively involved or mentioned, hinting that they may be relevant to the plot in that place in the story. When determining the most influential entities, we must look at more than frequency. Local density is just as important. An entity that appears infrequently in every scene may not hold as much importance as another entity that appears the same number of times overall but is concentrated with high activity in a select few scenes where it appears. Referring back to Figure 8, we can see that entity 0, 10, and 53 are the most prominent and locally frequent in the various scenes where they appear. These entities are the male lead (mentioned only by the first-person pronoun, ‘I’), the female lead, Skyler, and a supporting character, Stonne, respectively. Sure enough, these are the three main characters of “Falling.” This means that the Scatter Plot of Entities can be used to determine the main or most influential characters of a story, assuming that named entity recognition is able to properly detect them. We will see in Section 4 that the ability of the Scatter Plot of Entities to highlight entities of importance in the story enables the curation of the glossary of entities used as input into the Narrative Flow Graph, instructing the system on which plot-important entities to track.

3.4.4. Adherence to the definition of plot

The Scatter Plot of Entities can only very loosely be considered a visualization of the plot of the story. As we defined in Section 2.1, plot requires (1) characters of volition, (2) events involving those characters, (3) representation on how information spreads, (4) causation linking these aspects of plot, and (5) a full structure of those links from the beginning to the end of the story. The only requirements that this visualization addresses are events and very lightly characters and structure.

As a means of partitioning a story into its scenes, we see moderate success in clustering around high entity activity. Those scenes created by the clusters encompass the events of the story. This is the Scatter Plot of Entities’ strongest feature as far as the story’s plot is concerned. Characters are loosely represented by their location in the story, and we see which characters are most influential and which events they are heavily involved in through the more solid of the horizontal dotted lines; however, we do not have any representation of a character’s volition. Structure is also absent, and without some form of linking between scenes, we cannot develop a true plot structure for the story. By partitioning the story into scenes, we show only the narrative ordering of events. This inability to fully represent plot does not mean that the Scatter Plot of entities is without merit. The visual artifacts are informative about the story’s content, and through further research, more can be learned. We can use the Scatter Plot of Entities as a start, utilizing those aspects on which it performs well, to create another visualization that better addresses the aspects of plot where this visualization lacks.

4.2.1. Glossary curation and creation

The glossary XML file details the entities (actors, objects, and locations) that are plot-important so that the Narrative Flow Graph may detect and track them. Actors represent those entities with volition within the story, objects are entities without volition, and locations are where events or scenes take place. See Table 3 for a list of example entities and their classes from To Build a Fire and Appendix A for an detailed explanation of the definitions of actors, objects, and locations as pertaining to this research. To facilitate as much automation as possible, the Scatter Plot of Entities can be used with the aid of a human curator to produce the glossary. The curator is given the scatter plot output, $y$ -axis key, and count of entity appearances. After brief instruction on how entity importance may be detected from the output as detailed back in Section 3.4.3, they can use this data to accept or reject entities without having read or known the story beforehand. Locations where scenes take place are often not as mentioned as the entities involved in those scenes, so in order for the Narrative Flow Graph to have sufficient location information, the curator must select some locations detected by the Scatter Plot of Entities even if they have less locality or appearances than other entities. Locations must be compared only against other locations for relevance or they may be missed in curation. From here, the glossary XML file can be automatically generated. Figure 10 shows an example scatter plot for “Observer 1: A Warm Home” where the entities selected via curation are highlighted in cyan and all other entity points are diminished. We can see that those entities that are most frequent are easily noticeable for selection, and included with them are those entities that are less frequent overall but quite dense locally where they appear in the text. Compare Figure 10 with the Word Cloud in Figure 11 where only two of the characters, Hazel and Alfred, are readily apparent and perhaps two locations, the cottage and cellar. It is difficult without additional information to make any claims on which the other words are potentially influential or plot-important. For this particular example, of the 25 entities identified as plot-important by our human annotators, 15 are correctly selected through curation of the Scatter Plot of Entities output.

Table 3.

Example entities from all three entity classification types in the short story To Build a Fire

Figure 10.

Scatter Plot of Entities with the entities selected via minimal-effort human curation highlighted in cyan. Essentially, the human annotator simply selects entities associated with strong horizontal dotted lines.

Figure 11.

Word Cloud of “Observer 1: A Warm Home” to show comparison with Figure 10. The only entities that stand out are Alfred and Hazel, and perhaps the cottage and cellar because locations are needed. Without additional information, it is difficult to know if any of these other common words are important in the text.

4.2.2. Data preprocessing

Data preprocessing takes as input the plain text file of the story, the glossary XML, and the coreference CSV. Details about the annotation process and format of the glossary XML and coreference CSV can be found in Sections A.1.1 and A.1.2 respectively. We use the glossary to generate a list of entity objects wherein is stored the entity’s unique ID, the entity’s type, and all labels to which the entity is referred in the text. We then tokenize the raw text to isolate the instances of the entity references in the text. Using the entity list and coreference CSV, we replace each instance of an entity with the first label attributed to that entity. The coreferenced story is then outputted to be used in the next step of the system.

4.2.3. Early multi-graph generation

Early multi-graph generation takes as input the coreferenced story and the entity list. Following a simple algorithm, we create an ordered list of vertices and a set of edges.

1. Step 1: Parse the text into sentences and detect which sentences involve entities from the list. These sentences become the events of the story the initial multi-graph is built around.

2. Step 2: Create a vertex for each event storing the sentence number, text, and involved entities. These vertices are added to an ordered list by their narrative order appearance within the text.

3. Step 3: Following the definitions and restrictions in Section 4.1, create edges between each vertex by iterating through the list of vertices, and for each vertex search backwards through the list of vertices for the most recent appearance of every entity within that vertex. Each entity creates an edge to the most recent vertex where the entity last appears unless the current vertex is that entity’s first appearance.

4.2.4. Narrative flow graph creation

The multi-graph at this stage is large and difficult to reason about for long passages of text because it is comprised of event vertices made from individual sentences. Although a graph created with such high fidelity to the source text can be informative, to better notice patterns and features of the narrative, the graph needs to focus on the relationships between scenes. Individual sentences alone do not represent scenes in a story. Scenes in narrative can be described as an unbroken chain of events involving similar entities within the story. We tighten this definition by requiring the location of a scene to be consistent throughout the scene. The definition of a scene in Section 4.1 is sufficient for the Narrative Flow Graph’s structure, but to refine a multi-graph structure of event vertices into a Narrative Flow Graph made of scene vertices, we need further definitions.

We define an entity $\phi$ as $\phi =(i,\tau )$ where $i$ is the ID of the entity according to the user glossary and $\tau$ is the entity type. For an event, $\varepsilon$ , we can state $\varepsilon \in 2^\Phi$ , because like a scene, $s$ , it is comprised of entities. $\mathcal{E}$ is a list of events in narrative order. We define an event graph, $M^*$ , as $M^*=(\mathcal{E},E)$ . We can now define a function

(3) \begin{equation} f\;:\;M^*\to M \end{equation}

performing the following processes:

1. 1. Until $\mathcal{E} = \emptyset$ , create consecutive lists $\mathcal{E}_{n-m}^{'}$ from $\mathcal{E}$ where $\mathcal{E}_{n-m}^{'} = \langle \varepsilon _{n}$ to $\varepsilon _{m} \subseteq \mathcal{E} \; | \; \forall \; \varepsilon \; \exists \; \phi$ where $\tau \in \phi$ is of type: “location” and $ \phi _n = \phi _{n+1}$ until $n=m \rangle$ . The original indices of all $\varepsilon$ are remembered.

2. 2. Create a scene $s$ for each consecutive list where $s = \{\phi \; | \; \phi \in \mathcal{E}^{'}\}$ . $S$ is the set of all $s$ .

3. 3. For all $e \in E$ and $e = (\varepsilon _a,\varepsilon _b)$ , if $a = i$ where $i$ is the original index of $\varepsilon \in \mathcal{E}$ , set $a=j$ where $j$ is the index of $s \in S$ .

4. 4. For all $e \in E$ and $e = (\varepsilon _a,\varepsilon _b)$ , if $b = i$ where $i$ is the original index of $\varepsilon \in \mathcal{E}$ , set $b=j$ where $j$ is the index of $s \in S$ .

5. 5. Remove all $e$ from $E$ where $s_a = s_b$ .

The purpose of function $f$ is to take the single-sentence events and group them together creating scenes by combining those consecutive events that take place in the same location. All entities involved in those events are added to the new scene, and any edges attached to those events are changed to attach to that scene. The main limiting factor of this function is that not all sentences have an explicitly stated location; therefore, not all events will have a location entity within it, complicating step 1 of the function. To overcome this, we perform location inference before scene creation.

Location inference is the process of determining the location of events using the last known location found searching backwards through the edges of the graph. We perform a breadth-first search in reverse edge direction for each event vertex without a location entity. Once a location entity is discovered, we apply that entity to the source vertex that began the search. This process is better than simply finding the most recent location stated in the text because those branches of the narrative that have no relation to the current event (there are no entities in common) do not affect the location inference of that event, and it is beneficial for narrative structures where separate event or scene branches are running in parallel.

There remains a single issue with this method of scene creation: when multiple scenes happen at the same location. By strict adherence to the mathematical definition, all those scenes are combined into one. Essentially, the definition assumes that there is a single scene per location. While that may be the case for some stories, it certainly does not hold for all. To address this issue in the output, we do not fully combine the scenes. Instead, we implement as an appendage to Equation (3) a discriminator of entity homogeneity between events that can be adjusted to determine if events at the same location should be combined. While slightly altering scene creation in this manner does increase the complexity of the narrative flow graph—making more vertices and edges the more strict the discriminator—it also makes the graph more informative, essentially finding a middle ground between the $M^*$ and $M$ depending on how correlated the entities are within the scenes. If the actions and interactions between entities in the scenes are dissociated, the output graph will be closer to $M^*$ . Where they are more unified, the output graph will be closer to $M$ . For the tests in this paper, only consecutive events where entities are completely homogeneous are combined. In the results, you will see the difference between the output where scenes are more divided and the ground truth Narrative Flow Graphs where all events at a single location are combined into one scene. One negative side effect of this further scene breakdown is that dialogue creates a large number of vertices, often a vertex for a single line someone speaks. For scripts which are almost solely dialogue, the number of vertices is far larger than for short stories even when taking the length of the text into account.

Once we create the scenes and affix the edges to the correct scene vertices, we perform text summarization to create a more informative visualization. We do this through a TF-IDF algorithm. We create a matrix of word comparisons between each sentence in a scene. Those sentences that score the best overall for comparison with all other sentences in that scene are more likely to represent the scene as a whole. This is a simplistic approach, and a neural text summarizer would perform better, but that is a topic for future work.

Finally, we format the multi-graph structure and pertinent information such as edge and vertex labels and scene summaries into a .gv file to be compiled and interpreted by GraphViz’s dot compiler (Ellson et al., Reference Ellson, Gansner, Koutsofios, North and Woodhull2003). We assign edges and vertices colors according to the entities each edge represents or the location the scene takes place. We format the Narrative Flow Graph in a left-to-right orientation with each consecutive scene further right than its predecessor. This prevents any doubling back that would complicate the visual.

4.3.1. Common structures within narrative flow graphs

Each Narrative Flow Graph is distinct in its overall shape and appearance, but within the graphs are common structures that are repeated in many different Narrative Flow Graphs, giving hints to common, recurring narrative patterns. We have selected names for each based on their shape and function: Braids, Parallels, Breaks, Convergent Points, and Ends. Braids and Parallels deal with passages of narrative, Breaks and Convergent Points deal with scene transitions, and Ends deal with the end of a narrative branch.

Figure 12 shows examples of different Braids from different stories. Braids, as the name suggests, involve the interweaving of entities important to a scene or consecutive scenes as all other uninvolved entities pass by to where they come into play later in the story. These show areas where the entities involved in the current events of the narrative are homogeneous. Each Narrative Flow Graph created by the system contains multiple sections of Braids, making them the most common narrative structure.

Figure 12.

Examples of Braid structures in output graphs for six different stories. Braids are the most common of all structures in a Narrative Flow Graph, created by the interaction of a subset of entities involved in consecutive scenes. Braids can include a small number of entities as in Simba and Nala’s interaction in The Lion King, or many entities as seen in To Build a Fire.

Figure 13 shows an example of a Parallel. Parallels involve alternating scenes where the entities involved in one scene are not involved in another, creating almost a tiered structure within the Narrative Flow Graph. Where Parallels are prevalent, after one part of the Parallel is finished, the next scene often involves entities of the scenes that came before, as seen in The Lion King script where the imprisoned Zazu sings to Scar, and the hyenas report that the lionesses will not hunt. This scene happens in parallel with the scenes of Simba in the jungle with Timon and Pumba. Breaks are the most common scene transitions for Parallel scenes, as a line can almost be drawn between them. For Breaks, there is little to no interaction between entities of the two scenes, so the transition is a breaking of the narrative of one scene giving way to the start or continuation of the narrative of the following scene.

Figure 13.

A perfect example of parallel scenes in The Lion King. On the left and right in green are the jungle scenes with Timon, Pumba, and Simba. In the center in yellow is the scene where the imprisoned Zazu sings to Scar. There is no overlap between entities in these scenes, and the locations are different, creating clean scene Breaks. This is beautifully reflected in the Narrative Flow Graph.

Convergent Points, unlike Breaks, are where many entities converge to begin the next scene (high local edge density). As we stated before, the involvement of many entities does not necessarily mean that that scene is more plot-important; however, many crucial scenes in the story often do involve multiple entities. Similar to what we saw in Section 3.4.2 with the Scatter Plot of Entities, the largest example of this is climaxes. In the Narrative Flow Graphs generated by the system, many climaxes are visible at a glance solely by looking for convergence in entities (many edges leading to the same scene or between groups scenes) near the end of the story. In addition, crisis points (intermediary sub-climaxes) are visible the same way. Figure 14 shows examples of Convergent Points at climaxes. In the caption, we give an explanation of the convergence for that story. The local edge density changes, of course, depending on the story. This means that climaxes have high entity activity (entities mentioned frequently in close proximity in the text) and often have many entities involved in the climax scenes.

Figure 14.

Top left: Climax of “Observer 4: Legends” where the spirits of the fallen warriors witness Evelyn becoming legend. Top right: Climax of Hamlet where Hamlet, Laertes, and most of the cast have died. Bottom: Climax of “Observer 1: A Warm Home” where the village mob burns the cottage down and pursues the orphan. In each case, the climax is characterized by vertices or groups of vertices with a high degree of edge density.

It is interesting to note at the outgoing edge density of the vertices, the buildup of the story to the climax and winding down at the resolution is visible. Figure 15 shows the outgoing edge density of the ground truth Narrative Flow Graph for The Lion King where the climax is the highest spike in outgoing edge density: the fight for Pride Rock. There are some intermediary crisis point midway through the story representing the elephant graveyard scene at vertex 9 and the wildebeest incident leading to Scar telling those back at Pride Rock that Simab and Mufasa died in vertex 13. Incoming edge density can give similar information, but the benefit of recording outgoing edge density is that the Ends are visible as values of zero; in other words, they have no outgoing edge.

Figure 15.

The outgoing edge density of the ground truth Narrative Flow Graph of The Lion King showing the steady rising intensity of the story until the climax, and then ending with the resolution. The shape beautifully reflects a Fichtean Curve (Gardner, Reference Gardner1991). The crisis point at vertex 9 is the Elephant Graveyard scene. The crisis point at vertex 13 is the announcement that Simba and Mufasa were killed by a wildebeest stampede. The climax at vertex 27 is the battle for Pride Rock.

Ends are exactly what they imply, the end to a branch of the narrative. These are sinks in the Narrative Flow Graph. The most common end is the ending of the story, but not all ends have to be the ending of the story. Figure 16 shows the death of Scar in The Lion King script. The entities involved in those events, namely Scar and the hyenas, converge on that end and go no further. Their involvement in the story ends there.

Figure 16.

A distant view of the end of The Lion King in the output Narrative Flow Graph showing two end points (highlighted with red boxes). The first near the center is the death of Scar. The entities involved in this, Scar and the hyenas, have no part in the narrative beyond this point, creating a sink in the graph. The second red box on the right is the end of the Narrative Flow Graph, a sink where all other preceding vertices and edges eventually lead.

4.3.2. Ground truth comparisons

By following the annotation explanation in Section A.2.2, we create ground truth Narrative Flow Graphs which demarcate the scenes of their respective stories to show the relationship between events and the entities that connect them according to human understanding of the plot. Figure 17 shows the entire Narrative Flow Graph for The Lion King as an example of the ground truth multi-graphs. They are less complex, and thus shorter, than the multi-graphs output by the system due to all events being fully combined into their respective scenes. This decrease in complexity can be seen in Figure 18 where the parallel scenes from the output in Figure 13 are shown in the red box as single vertices and the end points in Figure 16 are shown in the green box. The shapes of both these structures between the output and ground truth Narrative Flow Graphs of The Lion King are remarkably similar, showing that for this story the system correctly represents the narrative structure at those locations.

Figure 17.

A distant view of the entire ground truth Narrative Flow Graph for The Lion King to show the overall structure of vertex and edge relationships.

Figure 18.

A distant view of the latter half of the ground truth Narrative Flow Graph for The Lion King. The section highlighted in red represents the same Parallel structure shown in Figure 13. The section highlighted in blue is the climax where all entities within the story are involved in the battle for Pride Rock (another example of the convergent points shown in Figure 14). The section highlighted in green shows the same two end points shown in Figure 16. Compare this ground truth shape to those in Figures 13 and 16 to note how well the computed Narrative Flow Graph captures basic features of the ground truth.

Table 4.

Vertex counts and accuracy for the seven stories. The second To Build a Fire calculation (denoted with ^*) uses simplified location annotation. Notice that the Narrative Flow Graph tends to create many more vertices than ground truth scenes. This is not ideal and represents an opportunity for future improvement to the technique. Also, location accuracy is high for both To Build a Fire^* and Hamlet, demonstrating the possibility of the system performing well. Similarly, the automated procedure to obtain scene accuracy works fairly well for Hamlet, where we have a very clear notion of ground truth, since it is a play.

Table 5.

Entity count comparisons, location accuracy, and scene accuracy for Narrative Flow Graphs produced using semi-automated, minimal-effort human-curated glossaries from the Scatter Plot of Entities. This table repeats the calculations shown in Table 4, but with a more automated method for producing the necessary glossary, and, like in Table 4, the second To Build a Fire calculation (denoted with ^*) uses simplified location annotation. Notice that the location and scene accuracy for “Observer 1: A Warm Home” reported here, using the more automated curated glossary, performs better than those for the same story using the hand-annotated glossary as shown in Table 4. Likewise, the location accuracies for A Sound of Thunder and Leiningen Versus the Ants are better here than in Table 4. Since the curated glossary used here leverages the Scatter Plot of entities to reduce the effort needed to create a glossary, compared with hand annotation used in Table 4, this result shows the possibility that increasingly automated solutions could compute better results, at least in some cases.

Table 4 shows the accuracy calculations as well as story length in words, the number of scenes in the ground truth Narrative Flow Graphs, and the number of vertices in the output graphs. The number of scenes in a few of the stories has increased in this table because the annotators followed our stricter scene definition, requiring not only for the scene to happen in a single location but for the entities involved to also be homogeneous. Scenes where there is a drastic change in the involved entities mid-scene or when the location changes mid-scene are split into separate scenes. We determine scene accuracy by calculating how well the partitioning of scenes and the participating entities compare with the ground truth. We do this through a simple intersect-over-union (IoU) of the scenes, and for where there is overlap, we perform another IoU for the entities involved in that overlap to weight or reduce the score of that overlap should the entities not match. Using IoU is also important in penalizing an output scene should it include entities that are not present in the ground truth scene. Scene summary is excluded from this calculation. We determine location accuracy by how well the location inference matches the location ground truth, calculated by simple matching percentage.

Table 5 shows the accuracy calculations of the Narrative Flow Graphs produced using glossaries generated through curation of the output of the Scatter Plot of Entities. Included are the number of entities in the hand-annotated glossary and the number of matching entities in the curated glossary. Hamlet and The Lion King are excluded from these results for two reasons. First, both these stories are so well known that this foreknowledge creates biases in the selection of entities during curation which makes for poor comparison against the other stories in this study. Second, the resulting Scatter Plot of Entities has so many points in the scatter plot that determining the most influential entities is much more challenging due to the noise. This difficulty emphasizes the importance of improving the automatic assessment of entity importance in the Scatter Plot of Entities, but that is a topic for future work.

4.4.1. Inspection of individual stories

A Sound of Thunder: This story is unique among those chosen in that it contains only three scenes: the present before traveling back in time, the past when the hunt takes place, and the return to the present. The small number of scenes creates a unique challenge for the system. The number of vertices in the output is the second smallest, but it is still many times greater than the number of scenes. In addition, a number of the plot-important objects that show the change from the original present to the changed present at the end of the story are mentioned in the text without any direct connection to actors in the scenes or references to the scene’s location. Because of the lack of connection, these plot-important objects appear in the Narrative Flow Graph without any scene or location labels until a connection is made, drastically reducing the accuracy of the scenes in which these objects first appear. And with only three scenes for the story, the overall accuracy takes a heavy hit. Curation misses every one of the plot-important objects used to show the future had changed, which results in even worse scene accuracy compared to using the hand-annotated glossary. These objects are missed in curation due to a combination of them being common objects and the infrequence of their appearance in the text despite their importance. For location accuracy, the locations chosen by the annotators are the future/present period and the ancient wilderness (or simply “wilderness” in curation). Having only two locations should make inference rather simple if not for the fact that both locations are discussed throughout the story when the characters are both in the present and ancient past. The Narrative Flow Graphs do not have the capability to differentiate between the actors physically being present in the location and a location being discussed in conversation or described in the text. As such, when these locations appear in the text, the system mistakenly thinks in a number of the vertices that that is where this section of the story takes place, decreasing the location accuracy for those vertices. Interestingly, the difference in using “ancient wilderness” in the hand-annotated glossary and just “wilderness” in the curated glossary results in the curated glossary having a slightly higher location accuracy (0.42 vs. 0.39). We selected this story because of its overall simplicity. Even so, perfectly representing it in a Narrative Flow Graph proves to be difficult.

To Build a Fire: We chose this story because assessing location in it is difficult. Much of the story takes place along Henderson Creek, but the events occur at specific locations along and off that creek’s trail. The system correctly assumes that most of the story takes place along Henderson Creek, but it is often incapable of determining the specific locations the ground truth Narrative Flow Graph denotes as the location at which many of the scenes take place. All of these specific locations complicate correctly constructing a Narrative Flow Graph for which location is important for scene creation and description. Difficulty in location assessment is the main reason scene accuracy is the lowest. If we remove the need to know the specific locations along Henderson Creek (as seen in Tables 4 and 5 with To Build a Fire^* ), the location accuracy increases to 0.969 (which is expected) and scene accuracy to 0.646 for the hand-annotated glossary, making it the highest location and second-highest scene accuracies. Essentially, we let the entities determine the scene breaks, since the addition of the discriminator mentioned in Section 4.2.4 for Equation (3) prevents all events of the same location from simply merging. For stories with difficult location assessment, simplifying the locations and letting the entities determine scene boundaries may produce better Narrative Flow Graphs.

The difficulty with location inference is also reflected in the curated results. During curation, the annotators do not identify every plot-important location chosen by the annotators who studied the plot of each story. This can either improve or worsen location accuracy depending on if a major or lesser location is missed. If a major location is missed in curation, the location accuracy takes a heavy hit, but should a lesser location be missed, that location will not be inferred in place of a major location should it appear in dialogue or otherwise, thus improving the location accuracy. Improvements in location accuracy from curation due to this reason can be seen in “Observer 1: A Warm Home” and Leiningen Versus the Ants. For To Build a Fire^* where the ground truth only includes two locations (the trailhead and Henderson Creek), the curator only identifies Henderson Creek, and so the Narrative Flow Graph cannot identify the location for the brief section along the trail before reaching Henderson Creek in the beginning of the story.

Figure 19.

The ground truth Narrative Flow Graph for Leiningen Versus the Ants. The braids in the earlier parts of the story involve fewer entities, but as the story progresses the density of the braids and complexity of their interactions increases. This is a perfect example of buildup in a story as more entities get involved in the conflict.

Figure 20.

The outgoing edge density of the ground truth Narrative Flow Graph for Leiningen Versus the Ants. The crisis point at scene 5 is when the ants reach the plantation and countermeasures begin. Scenes 9 and 10 are when the dam fails to keep the ants back, and everyone retreats. The climax at scene 13 where local edge density is highest is where Leiningen has no other choice but to flood his plantation. This is another example of how the Narrative Flow Graph, as a concept, captures the Fichtean Curve nature of the story in the outgoing edge density structure of the graph.

Leiningen Versus the Ants: We selected this short story as a perfect example of buildup within a story, meaning that as the story progresses, the number of entities involved and the frequency of that involvement increases as illustrated in Figure 19. The Braids in the earlier parts of the story involve fewer entities, but as the story progresses, more and more entities, both actors and objects, become involved. The climax at the end is locally very dense in the number of edges connecting the last few nodes before the thinning down at the resolution (another beautiful example of a Fichtean Curve as seen in Figure 20). The system does well for the majority of the story matching both scene and location until the end where it has difficulty ascertaining where the final scenes in both the climax and resolution take place. The majority of the location accuracy comes from the first two-thirds of the output Narrative Flow Graph. Similarly, due to the complexity of the climax, the system struggles to accurately partition the scenes. As mentioned above, the location accuracy for the Narrative Flow Graph generated from the glossary curated from the Scatter Plot of Entities output improves over the hand-annotated glossary by 6.5%, resulting in the second-highest location accuracy over all tests with both glossary types. This increase, again, is attributed to the lesser locations, though still plot-important, being ignored in curation, which in turn reduces mislabeling of scenes that take place at major locations in location inference. The resulting scene accuracy of the Narrative Flow Graph generated from the curated glossary is lower than that of the hand-annotated glossary’s Narrative Flow Graph, but compared to the drop in scene accuracy of most of the other stories, the drop is not significant. As a step towards automation of the process to generate the Narrative Flow Graph with as little human input as possible, curation of the output of the Scatter Plot of Entities as a means to generate the glossary for the Narrative Flow Graph for this story can be seen as a relative success.

“Observer 1”: We chose the two “Observer” short stories because we wanted to see how the system handles a less-professional, less-refined narrative. “Observer 1: A Warm Home” is simple in its locations, all taking place at a single cottage on a hill. Like with To Build a Fire, there are specific locations within locations on the hill and in the cottage where events happen, but they are more explicitly stated, making it easier for the system to detect. The difficulty in this story is that not every event is plot-important. There are scenes that give details about characters, locations, and setting with interactions between characters that do not contribute to the buildup and conclusion of the story. Because of this, there are a number of vertices in the output that do not have a corresponding scene in the ground truth plot map, decreasing the accuracy. This story is the only one where curation improves upon both location and scene accuracy (an increase of 5.7% and 7.6% respectively). This shows the potential of curation for those stories where identifying the most important entities in the output of the Scatter Plot of Entities is easy. Looking back at Figure 10, the most important entities (the ones that have strong local presence shown as sections of dense horizontal points) are quickly identifiable. The exclusion of the lesser plot-important entities that the hand annotators identify does not hurt the scene accuracy, especially considering that the exclusion of lesser locations enables the scenes to form better in the Narrative Flow Graph (recall that entity homogeneity is a requirement to combine event vertices into a single scene). Overall, there is not too great a difference in many sections of the Narrative Flow Graphs produced from the hand-annotated glossary and the curated glossary. An example of this similarity can be seen in Figure 21. The major difference is the reduced number of edges due to multiple entities being missed in curation. Optimally, our goal is to properly identify and detect all plot-important entities whether lesser or major, but the results of the curation for this story show that for some stories, identifying only the major plot-important entities can give a better model of the narrative flow.

Figure 21.

Comparison between the Narrative Flow Graphs generated from ground truth (top), hand-annotated (middle), and semi-automated curation (bottom) glossaries for “Observer 1: A Warm Home” starting from the same scene until the end of the story. We see very little difference between the annotated and curated results, demonstrating a situation where semi-automation of the process works well.

“Observer 4”: This story follows the hero’s journey archetype and ends in a large, climactic battle. Locations are varied and change as the story progresses, never returning to a former location until a time-skip in the resolution. This is visible in the resulting Narrative Flow Graph as the color and location labels on the vertices change as the multi-graph progresses from left to right. The system has difficulty getting every single location correct, especially because they are often not explicitly stated as the characters travel. In addition, in the climactic battle at the end, events happen at different locations on the battlefield, and similar to To Build a Fire, the system has difficulty correctly inferring those specific locations. Combining those two challenges, the location accuracy is the worst of all the stories for both hand-annotated and curated glossaries. Scene accuracy is also poor because there is a lot of exposition talking about the past and distant locations. While these parts are plot-important for the story, the system has difficulty knowing when a flashback or exposition ends. It continues those locations into proceeding scenes until something within the text signifies that a new scene has started instead of the continuation of the scene before the flashback or exposition, muddying scene boundaries and making it difficult to tell where many scenes in the output begin or end, drastically decreasing the scene accuracy. Curation results are also poor, mostly due to the number of entities in this story. Due to the journey aspect of the plot, there are many peoples and places, and most of these entities are not easily identifiable in the output of the Scatter Plot of Entities. Of the 70 plot-important entities identified by the annotators, only 21 of them are identified in curation. Many of the missed entities are locations, leading to the worst location accuracy over all the tests with both glossary types. The curation results highlight a limitation of human curation for stories with many entities and emphasize the importance of finding automated means of curating the output of the Scatter Plot of Entities for glossary creation, which is a topic for future work.

Hamlet Script: Play scripts differ greatly from short stories. Very little information is given about place and setting, and actions are either very simply described (such as a character leaving or entering) or otherwise not mentioned at all, leaving performers to determine what actions best fit the scenes. The bulk of the text are lines spoken by the characters, and each line explicitly states who speaks it, making the task of determining what entities are involved in a scene very simple. Likewise, because the script is broken directly into scenes, each scene being its own specific location in the script (where the actual location where events take place in the story is often not mentioned at all), creating scenes that match the ground truth is also very simple. Because of this, the Narrative Flow Graph outputted for the Hamlet script has the second-highest location and highest scene accuracies when compared to its ground truth.

The Lion King Script: This cinema script differs from the play script of Hamlet in that in addition to lines spoken by the characters, the scenes, locations, and actions taken by the actors are explained simply, creating a middle ground between a play script and a short story. Figures 13 and 16 shown earlier illustrate parts of the output for The Lion King script, while Figure 17 earlier shows a distant view of the ground truth Narrative Flow Graph in its entirety. One challenge of this script is the musical compositions. While some of the information in different musical numbers is plot-important, their main purpose is entertainment. As such, not all of the musical numbers are included in the ground truth Narrative Flow Graph; however, they appear in the output, creating differences between the output and ground truth. In addition, while sections of the graph in the center and at the end nearly match the ground truth perfectly as seen back in Figure 18, much of the early story does not, especially when many of the different locations and entities are talked about but are not physically present, such as when Mufasa teaches Simba. Both discussions about locations and the musical compositions heavily decrease the location and scene accuracy for an output that visually is close to the ground truth.

4.4.2. Adherence to the definition of plot

As defined in Section 2.1, plot requires (1) characters of volition, (2) events involving those characters, (3) representation on how information spreads, (4) causation linking these aspects of plot, and (5) a full structure of those links from the beginning to the end of the story.

The most obvious adherence to the definition is that the entities of the Narrative Flow Graph cover the first requirement. All plot-important characters and object are denoted in the user-defined glossary, thanks to our imagined perfect Scatter Plot of Entities, and as such, we track them. Not only are all events involving at least one of those entities included in a scene vertex, but we also track any mention of that entity in conversation or description. A character might not be physically part of a scene, but if that character is discussed or described, then information about that character is affecting that scene. Therefore an edge representing that entity, the one that is discussed or described, connects to that scene showing that inclusion. This sharing of information also means the Narrative Flow Graph covers the third requirement of plot, although there is currently no way to distinguish between a mention of an entity and that entity being physically present.

Similar to satisfying the first requirement, the second is also covered by the detection of entities, but poorly. We include in a scene vertex every physical event of the story involving an entity. The main issue here is that even those events that are not plot-important are also included. If a character sneezes for no apparent reason, that event will be included in a scene vertex because that character was directly referenced in the text. To fully satisfy the second requirement, we should include only those events that are vital to the story progression, which the Narrative Flow Graphs simply cannot do yet.

The fourth requirement of causation is another that the Narrative Flow Graph covers but poorly. The links between scenes of the story are shown through the entities involved in each scene. As mentioned earlier, there is a connection between scenes involving the same entity, meaning that the previous scene in some way may cause the next scene where that entity appears. The multi-DAG’s dependency ordering illustrates these causal relationships. The current implementation lacks the reason for causal connection, so the specific causal connection between scenes remains unknown, only showing that a causal connection might exist. Defining the causal connection is a far more complicated task. Despite lacking in true causal connections, we build a structural model of the story from its beginning to its end, satisfying the fifth and final requirement for plot according to the definition used in this research.

Following the requirements of plot detailed in Section 2.1, the combination of the Scatter Plot of Entities and Narrative Flow Graph can be considered a partial representation of the plot of the story.