File size: 144,594 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2480 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2512 2513 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 2521 2522 2523 2524 2525 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564 2565 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 2671 2672 2673 2674 2675 2676 2677 2678 2679 2680 2681 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 2687 2688 2689 2690 2691 2692 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 2698 2699 2700 2701 2702 2703 2704 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2711 2712 2713 2714 2715 2716 2717 2718 2719 2720 2721 2722 2723 2724 2725 2726 2727 2728 2729 2730 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2756 2757 2758 2759 2760 2761 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 2781 2782 2783 2784 2785 2786 2787 2788 2789 2790 2791 2792 2793 2794 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 2804 2805 2806 2807 2808 2809 2810 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 2821 2822 | {
"paper_id": "2021",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T13:27:24.428017Z"
},
"title": "Revisiting Shallow Discourse Parsing in the PDTB-3: Handling Intra-sentential Implicits",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Zheng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhao",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Edinburgh",
"location": {
"addrLine": "10 Crichton Street",
"postCode": "EH8 9AB",
"settlement": "Edinburgh"
}
},
"email": "zheng.zhao@ed.ac.uk"
},
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Edinburgh",
"location": {
"addrLine": "10 Crichton Street",
"postCode": "EH8 9AB",
"settlement": "Edinburgh"
}
},
"email": "bonnie.webber@ed.ac.uk"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "In the PDTB-3, several thousand implicit discourse relations were newly annotated within individual sentences, adding to the over 15,000 implicit relations annotated across adjacent sentences in the PDTB-2. Given that the position of the arguments to these intra-sentential implicits is no longer as well-defined as with inter-sentential implicits, a discourse parser must identify both their location and their sense. That is the focus of the current work. The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of our results, showcasing model performance under different scenarios, pointing out limitations and noting future directions.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "2021",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "In the PDTB-3, several thousand implicit discourse relations were newly annotated within individual sentences, adding to the over 15,000 implicit relations annotated across adjacent sentences in the PDTB-2. Given that the position of the arguments to these intra-sentential implicits is no longer as well-defined as with inter-sentential implicits, a discourse parser must identify both their location and their sense. That is the focus of the current work. The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of our results, showcasing model performance under different scenarios, pointing out limitations and noting future directions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Discourse parsing is the task of identifying and categorizing discourse relations between discourse segments in a given text. The task is considered to be important for downstream tasks such as question answering (Jansen et al., 2014) , machine translation (Li et al., 2014) , and text summarization (Cohan et al., 2018) . There are various approaches to discourse parsing, corresponding to different views of (1) what constitutes the segments of discourse,",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 213,
"end": 234,
"text": "(Jansen et al., 2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 274,
"text": "(Li et al., 2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 320,
"text": "(Cohan et al., 2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(2) what structures can be built from such segments, and (3) what semantic and/or rhetorical relations can hold between such segments (Xue et al., 2015; Zeldes et al., 2019) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 152,
"text": "(Xue et al., 2015;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 173,
"text": "Zeldes et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Approaches to discourse structure generally allow discourse relations to hold between segments within a sentence (i.e., intra-sentential discourse relations) or across sentences (i.e. inter-sentential discourse relations) (Joty et al., 2012; Muller et al., 2012; Stede, 2011; Stede et al., 2016) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 222,
"end": 241,
"text": "(Joty et al., 2012;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 262,
"text": "Muller et al., 2012;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 275,
"text": "Stede, 2011;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 295,
"text": "Stede et al., 2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In the Penn Discourse Treebank (PDTB; Prasad et al., 2008) , all discourse relations have two arguments, called Arg1 and Arg2. Discourse relations are termed explicit, if the evidence for the relation is an explicit discourse connective (word or phrase). For implicit discourse relations, evidence is in the form of argument adjacency (with or without intervening punctuation), though annotators were asked to record one or more discourse connectives that, if present, would explicitly signal the sense(s) they inferred to hold between the arguments. Where annotators felt that the relation was already signalled by an alternative (non-connective) expression, the expression was annotated as evidence for what was called an AltLex relation (Prasad et al., 2010) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 58,
"text": "Prasad et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 740,
"end": 761,
"text": "(Prasad et al., 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The first major release of the PDTB was the PDTB-2 (Prasad et al., 2008) whose guidelines limited annotation to (a) Explicit relations lexicalized by discourse connectives, and (b) Implicit and Alt-Lex relations between paragraph-internal adjacent sentences and between complete clauses within sentences separated by colons or semi-colons. Since there were only \u223c530 intra-sentential implicit relations among the \u223c15,500 implicit relations annotated in the PDTB-2, they were ignored in work on discourse parsing (Lin et al., 2014; Wang and Lan, 2015; Xue et al., 2015 Xue et al., , 2016 , which took implicit relations to hold only between adjacent sentences.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 72,
"text": "(Prasad et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 530,
"text": "(Lin et al., 2014;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 531,
"end": 550,
"text": "Wang and Lan, 2015;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 551,
"end": 567,
"text": "Xue et al., 2015",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 568,
"end": 586,
"text": "Xue et al., , 2016",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The situation changed with the release of the PDTB-3 (Webber et al., 2019) . Among the \u223c5.6K sentence-internal implicit relations annotated in the PDTB-3 are relations between VPs or clauses conjoined implicitly by punctuation (Ex. 1), between a free adjunct or free to-infinitive and its matrix clause (Ex. 2) , and between a marked syntactic construction and its matrix clause. There are also implicit relations co-occurring with explicit relations (Webber et al., 2019) , as noted in Section 3.1.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 74,
"text": "(Webber et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 310,
"text": "(Ex. 2)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 472,
"text": "(Webber et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "(1) Father McKenna moves through the house praying in Latin, (Implicit=and) urging the demon to split. [wsj_0413] (2) Father McKenna moves through the house (Implicit=while) praying in Latin, urging the demon to split. [wsj_0413] Why are implicit intra-sentential relations a problem for shallow discourse parsing? First, as already noted, unlike inter-sentential implicits, they do not occur at sentence boundaries, with material to the left of the boundary as Arg1 and material to the right as Arg2. Secondly, Arg1 and Arg2 can appear in either order: Arg1 before Arg2, as in Ex 1-2, or Arg2 before Arg1, as in Ex. 3. Parsing implicit intra-sentential relations therefore requires both locating and labelling their arguments, as well as identifying the sense(s) in which they are related. 1 (3) (Implicit=if it is) To slow the rise in total spending, it will be necessary to reduce per-capita use of services.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 113,
"text": "[wsj_0413]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 229,
"text": "[wsj_0413]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 791,
"end": 792,
"text": "1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "[wsj_0314]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "This work takes up some of the challenges of parsing implicit intra-sentential discourse relations. Overall, it contributes: (1) a set of BERT-based models used as a pipeline for recognizing intrasentential implicit discourse relations as well as classifying their senses; (2) experimental evidence that these BERT-based models perform better than comparable LSTM-based models on the relation recognition task; (3) evidence that the use of parse tree features can improve model performance, as was earlier found useful in simply recognizing when a sentence contained at least one implicit intra-sentential relation (Liang et al., 2020) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 615,
"end": 635,
"text": "(Liang et al., 2020)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The focus of the current work is parsing implicit intra-sentential discourse relations in the framework of the PDTB-3. As most of the implicit relations in the PDTB-2 were inter-sentential (i.e., \u223c95% of its 15.5K implicit relations), its intrasentential implicits were ignored in parser development. Nearly all recent work on recognizing inter-sentential implicits in the PDTB-2 used neural architectures. This included multi-level attention in work by Liu and Li (2016) , multiple text representations in work by Bai and Zhao (2018) , including character, subword, word, sentence, and sentence pair levels, to more fully capture the text. Dai and Huang (2018) introduced a paragraph-level neural architecture with a conditional random field (CRF, Lafferty et al., 2001 ) layer which models inter-dependencies of discourse units and predicts a sequence of discourse relations in a paragraph. Varia et al. (2019) introduced an approach to distill knowledge from word pairs for discourse relation with CNN by joint learning of implicit and explicit relations. Shi and Demberg (2019) discovered that BERT-based models, which were trained on the next sentence prediction task, benefited implicit inter-sentential discourse relation classification. Here we assess whether they also benefit classifying intra-sentential implicit relations.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 454,
"end": 471,
"text": "Liu and Li (2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 515,
"end": 534,
"text": "Bai and Zhao (2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 641,
"end": 661,
"text": "Dai and Huang (2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 743,
"end": 770,
"text": "(CRF, Lafferty et al., 2001",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 893,
"end": 912,
"text": "Varia et al. (2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 1059,
"end": 1081,
"text": "Shi and Demberg (2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Looking at implicit relations in the PDTB-3, Prasad et al. (2017) consider the difficulty in extending implicit relations to relations that cross paragraph boundaries. Kurfal\u0131 and \u00d6stling (2019) examine whether implicit relation annotation in the PDTB-3 can be used as a basis for learning to classify implicit relations in languages that lack discourse annotation. Kim et al. (2020) explored whether the PDTB-3 could be used to learn finegrained (Level-2) sense classification in general, while Liang et al. (2020) looked at whether separating inter-sentential implicits from intra-sentential implicits could improve their sense classification. They also took a first step towards recognizing what sentences contained intra-sentential implicit relations, finding this benefitted from the use of linearized parse tree features.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 65,
"text": "Prasad et al. (2017)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 194,
"text": "Kurfal\u0131 and \u00d6stling (2019)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 515,
"text": "Liang et al. (2020)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Outside the PDTB-3 framework, intra-sentential discourse relations are handled by (1) identifying discourse units (DUs), (2) attaching them to one another, and (3) associating the attachment with a coherence relation (Muller et al., 2012) . One can therefore ask why we did not simply adopt this framework in the PDTB-3 and exploit the relatively good performance by systems in the DISRPT shared task on sentence-level discourse unit segmentation (Zeldes et al., 2019) . There are two main reasons: First, DISRPT (and the approaches to discourse structure it covers) assumes that discourse segments cover a sentence with a non-overlapping partition. This is not the case with the PDTB, where the presence of overlapping segments (both within and across sentences) has been well documented (Lee et al., 2006) . Second, discourse segments in these approaches are taken to correspond to syntactic units, which leads to both over-segmentation and under-segmentation in the PDTB-3. Of course, there are \"work-arounds\" for over-segmentation, such as RST's use of a SAME-SEGMENT relation (Mann and Thompson, 1988) , and under-segmentation can be addressed through additional segmentation. However, we decided that starting from scratch would allow us to clearly identify the problems of parsing intra-sentential implicits, at which point, we could consider what we could adopt from work done on the DISRPT shared task on sentence-level discourse unit segmentation (Zeldes et al., 2019) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 238,
"text": "(Muller et al., 2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 468,
"text": "(Zeldes et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
},
{
"start": 789,
"end": 807,
"text": "(Lee et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 1081,
"end": 1106,
"text": "(Mann and Thompson, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 1457,
"end": 1478,
"text": "(Zeldes et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Given an input sentence S represented as a sequence of tokens s 1 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 s n , our aim is to identify the span of Arg1 and Arg2 if there exist an implicit discourse relation in that sentence and then to predict its corresponding sense relation. We treat the identification of argument spans as a sequence tagging problem, and the prediction of senses as a classification task. Thus, given S, our aim is to output both a tag sequence Y of length n and a sense label c for the identified relation. The generated tag sequence y 1 \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 y n contains token-level labels where y j \u2208 {B-Arg1, B-Arg2, I-Arg1, I-Arg2, O} indicating whether the token belongs to Arg1, Arg2, or Other. We adopt the BIO format (Ramshaw and Marcus, 1999) since arguments (1) can span multiple tokens, (2) can occur in either order, (3) need not be adjacent, and (4) do not overlap. (Future work will address two additional properties of intra-sentential implicits: (1) as shown in Sec 3.1, a sentence can contain more than one such relation and (2) even though most arguments are continuous spans, 264 intra-sentential implicit relations (4.2%) have discontinuous spans.)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Methodology",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "This section describes the two parts of our approach. Section 3.1 describes the creation of two datasets based on the PDTB-3:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Methodology",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "D 1 = {(S (i) , P (i) , Y (i) ) | i \u2208 {1 . . . N }}, D 2 = {(A (i) 1 , A (i) 2 , P (i) , c (i) ) | i \u2208 {1 . . . M }} consist- ing of N and M input-output pairs,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Methodology",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "where S is the input sentence, P is its parse tree, A 1 and A 2 are Arg1 and Arg2 of the intra-sentential relation, Y is the output sentence label, and c is the sense label. Sections 3.2-3.3 describe models to recognize the argument spans and classify the relations. We provide detailed descriptions for these two steps in the rest of this section.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Methodology",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "As we have two tasks, we built two datasets. Dataset D 1 is used to train our argument identification models. It simply comprises individual sentences from the PDTB-3 and a sequence of labels of these sentences. Some models also contain parse tree features (Marcus et al., 1993) . To generate the sequence of labels Y , we take annotations of intra-sentential implicit relations from the PDTB-3.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 257,
"end": 278,
"text": "(Marcus et al., 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dataset Generation",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Arg1 tokens in the sentence are labelled Arg1, and Arg2 tokens are labelled Arg2. Tokens with O labels means they belong to neither Arg1 nor Arg2. If a sentence does not have any intra-sentential implicit relation, then all of its tokens will be labelled O. In BIO format, these labels then become B-Arg1, B-Arg2, I-Arg1, I-Arg2, and O. The dataset comprises the 46,430 sentences in the PDTB-3, with 24,369 intra-sentential relations, of which 6,234 are implicit. Table 1 shows that a single sentence can have zero, one or more intrasentential implicit relations, with over 99% of the sentences having no more than one. So as not to lose any training data, the 321 sentences with two relations are duplicated, with each duplicate containing one of the relations. So while we do not currently try to learn multiple implicit relations within a sentence, this approach means we don't prejudice which relation is learned.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 464,
"end": 471,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dataset Generation",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Another way of not losing data is to treat intrasentential AltLex relations as intra-sentential implicits because they only differ from the latter in signalling its sense in its lexicalization (Liang et al., 2020) . For instance, free-adjuncts are generally Arg2 of an intra-sentential implicit. However, those free adjuncts headed by \"avoiding\", \"contributing to\", \"resulting in\", etc. are labelled Alt-Lex relations because the head uniquely signals a RESULT sense. Structurally, however, it is still an intra-sentential implicit.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 193,
"end": 213,
"text": "(Liang et al., 2020)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dataset Generation",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Finally, the dataset does not include implicit relations that are linked to an explicit relation. Such linking is used to convey that the arguments are semantically related in a way that cannot be attributed to the explicit discourse connective alone (Webber et al., 2019) . A dedicated model to recognize implicits \"linked\" to explicit relations is included in work by Liang et al. (2020) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 251,
"end": 272,
"text": "(Webber et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 389,
"text": "Liang et al. (2020)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dataset Generation",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Dataset D 2 is used to train the sense classi-...",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dataset Generation",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Totally absorbed , the ringers ...",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "...",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Bi-LSTM or BERT fier. It only contains data on sentences with intrasentential implicits, and is thus smaller than D 1 . Each entry in D 2 includes Arg1, Arg2, the parse tree for the sentence in which they lie, and a sense label for the Arg1-Arg2 pair. Similar to D 1 , we also include AltLex relations. The current effort uses Level-2 sense labels to avoid data sparsity, while still providing a more meaningful sense than the 4 coarse labels in Level-1. The distribution of Level-2 sense labels is shown in Table 7 in Appendix A.1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 508,
"end": 515,
"text": "Table 7",
"ref_id": "TABREF10"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CRF Layer",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Sentence B-Arg2 I-Arg2 O B-Arg1 I-Arg1 Labels stare straight ahead , I-Arg1 I-Arg1 I-Arg1 O Word Embedding Layer",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "CRF Layer",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The architecture for our argument identification model is shown in Figure 1 . The input sentence first goes through the word embedding layer and then passes through either a BiLSTM (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) or BERT module. Then the learned representation over the input sentence is fed into a CRF layer to generate a sequence of labels Y .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 215,
"text": "(Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 75,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Argument Identification",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Baseline model The baseline model uses pretrained GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) vectors with BiLSTM and no additional parse tree features. For input sentence S where S = {s 1 , . . . , s n } and s i denotes the ith token in S, the word vector e i is obtained from the word embedding module. Then a contextualized token-level encoding h i is obtained via a BiLSTM module:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 81,
"text": "(Pennington et al., 2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Argument Identification",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2212 \u2192 h i = LSTM f (e i , \u2212 \u2192 h i\u22121 ), \u2190 \u2212 h i = LSTM b (e i , \u2190 \u2212 h i+1 ), h i = [ \u2212 \u2192 h i ; \u2190 \u2212 h i ],",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Argument Identification",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "where \u2212 \u2192 h i and \u2190 \u2212 h i are hidden states of forward and backward LSTMs at time step i, and ; denotes concatenation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Argument Identification",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The resulting contextual word representations are then fed to the CRF layer to predict the Y label.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Argument Identification",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "BERT-based models Shi and Demberg (2019) observed that BERT-based models can benefit the task of classifying implicit inter-sentential discourse relations. Here we ask whether they can help in the task of argument recognition for intrasentential implicit relations by creating variants of the baseline model where some parts of the model are replaced by BERT-based models.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 40,
"text": "Shi and Demberg (2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Argument Identification",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The first variant of the model we implemented replaces the pre-trained GloVe word vectors with a pre-trained BERT model for word embedding initialization. We then construct a second variant on top of this, which also contains parse tree features. (These come from Penn TreeBank parse trees (Marcus et al., 1993) , since we already know from Liang et al. (2020) that performance will drop when automated parse tree features are used.) The parse trees are first linearized and then fed to a separate BiLSTM module. The learned parse tree representations are concatenated with learned representations of the input sentence to a single vector. This vector, containing both lexical and syntactic information of the input, is then fed to the CRF layer for output prediction.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 290,
"end": 311,
"text": "(Marcus et al., 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Argument Identification",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "These model variants use a pre-trained BERT model. We also implemented models that fine-tune BERT on our task. One variant uses the vanilla BERT model, replacing the BiLSTM module, and another variant has the same architecture but also uses parse tree features of the input sentences.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Argument Identification",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The sense classifier uses a BERT model whose input is the pair of arguments, Arg1 and Arg2, and whose output is a Level-2 discourse relation sense.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sense Classification",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "E [CLS] T [CLS] [CLS] Unused rapidly [SEP] affecting",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sense Classification",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Contingency.Cause",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Arg1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "T 1 T M ' T N T [SEP] T 1 ' ... ... E 1 E N E [SEP] E 1 ' BERT E M ' ... ... ... ... homes",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Arg1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Figure 2: Architecture of our sense classifier.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Arg2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The model architecture is illustrated in Figure 2 . Following Shi and Demberg (2019), we concatenate Arg1 and Arg2 into a sequence separated with the special token [SEP] . We also insert the special token [CLS] at the beginning of the sequence. We use the output of BERT on the [CLS] token for sense classification. In addition, we also use parse trees as additional features to BERT. Similar to the method for argument identification, the learned parse tree features are concatenated with the representations of the [CLS] token to a single vector. This vector is then used for predicting the sense label.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 169,
"text": "[SEP]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 210,
"text": "[CLS]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 49,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Arg2",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Given the training set for argument identification with labelled sequence",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Inference",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "{S (i) , P (i) , Y (i) | i \u2208 {1",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Inference",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": ". . . N }}, we maximize the conditional log likelihood for the sequence tagging objective:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Inference",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "w = argmax w N i=1 log p(Y (i) | S (i) , P (i) , w),",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Inference",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "where w denotes the model's parameters including the weights of the LSTM/BERT module and the transition weights of the CRF layer. The loss function for Y labels is the negative log-likelihood based on Y (i) = {y 1 , . . . , y n }:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Inference",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "L Y = \u2212 N i=1 n j=1 log p(y j ),",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Inference",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "where y j \u2208 Y (i) . For sense classification which is predicting c label, the loss function is cross entropy:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 17,
"text": "(i)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Inference",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "L c = \u2212 M i=1 C j=1 c (i) j log p(c (i) j ),",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Inference",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "where C denotes the number of classes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Inference",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "At test time, inference for labels of a sentence S involves applying the Viterbi algorithm to the CRF module to find the sequence with maximum likelihood\u0176 :",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Inference",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "Y = argmax Y P (Y | S, P,w).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training and Inference",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "For our experiments with LSTM-based models, we set the hidden dimensions to 256, the word embeddings to 100, and the vocabulary size to 50K. The word embeddings are initialized either using pre-trained Glove vectors (6B tokens, uncased) or a pre-trained base-uncased BERT. For experiments with BERT-based models, we use the same configuration with base-uncased BERT from Devlin et al. (2019) . All of our training used the Adam optimizer (Kingma and Ba, 2015). LSTM-based models used a learning rate of 1e-3 and BERT-based models used a learning rate of 5e-5. We also use gradient clipping with a maximum gradient norm of 1 and we do not use any form of regularization. For sense classification, the gradient clipping is set with a maximum gradient norm of 0.5. We carry out assessment on the datasets mentioned in Section 3.1 in two different ways: (1) using a random split of each dataset into training (60%), development (20%) and test (20%) subsets, and (2) accepting the argument in Shi and Demberg (2017) that there is too much variation across the corpus for a single random split to produce representative results and that N-fold cross-validation will deliver more reliable and predictive results. In this work, we perform 10-fold cross-validation. We use loss on the development set to perform early stopping. All of our models were trained on a single Tesla P100 GPU with a batch size of 32. Our model implementation uses PyTorch (Paszke et al., 2019) . We used the BERT implementation from the Transformers library (Wolf et al., 2020) , and the CRF implementation from AllenNLP library (Gardner et al., 2018) for constrained decoding for the BIO scheme.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 371,
"end": 391,
"text": "Devlin et al. (2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 1440,
"end": 1461,
"text": "(Paszke et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 1526,
"end": 1545,
"text": "(Wolf et al., 2020)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 1597,
"end": 1619,
"text": "(Gardner et al., 2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Argument Identification The best results here on the sequence labelling objective for all model variants come from the fine-tuned BERT-based model with additional parse tree features. In general, BERT-based models outperform LSTM-based models, and models that use parse tree features Table 3 : Cross-validation results of exact match for Arg1 and Arg2. \u2020 denotes that a pre-trained BERT is used for word embedding. outperform those that don't. (All results appear in Appendix A.2. The overall higher results for O (i.e., neither Arg1 nor Arg2) come simply from label imbalance.)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 284,
"end": 291,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "The standard automatic evaluation metrics for discourse argument recognition are Precision, Recall and F 1 , computed on predicted arguments for relations that match the gold annotations. We follow Xue et al. (2015) in counting an argument as correctly recognized if and only if its span exactly matches the gold argument. No reward is given for partial match. Results on the test set from the 60/20/20 random split are shown for all models in Table 2 . Cross-validation results are shown in Table 3 for BERT-based models. The best overall performance comes from the fine-tuned BERT model with parse tree features. The cross-validation results also show that the use of parse tree features improves Precision, if not Recall in all cases. This makes sense as the parse tree features can be used to reject what would otherwise be False Positives. In addition, we can see that for Arg2, the LSTM models with pre-trained BERT perform better than fine-tuned BERT. We haven't yet figured out any reason for this. Finally, we can see that models perform better on Arg2 (both Recall and Precision) than on Arg1. We attribute this to the fact that, even though Arg2 is not marked with an explicit connective (i.e., these are all implicit relations), there may still be positional and/or syntactic cues to its identity.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 198,
"end": 215,
"text": "Xue et al. (2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 444,
"end": 451,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Supporting these observations are statistics from the test set. First, of its 987 sentences with intrasentential implicit relations, the leftmost argument aligns with the beginning of the sentence 495 times (50.2%). Of these, Arg1 is the leftmost argument 430 times (86.9%). At the other end of the sentence, 685 (69.4%) relations have their rightmost argument ending at the end of the sentence, almost 200 more than those with an argument at the beginning. Of these 685 relations, 614 (89.6%) have Arg2 at their rightmost boundary. Note that whenever an argument starts or ends at a sentence boundary, the model just needs to predict the other end of the span, which is easier than predicting both ends. With Arg2 appearing more often at a sentence boundary than Arg1, this is consistent with our observation of model performance.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Even though the training data for the argument identification model contains at most one relation per sentence and the model only predicts continuous argument spans, we purposely relax the constraint for the model to predict at most one relation per sentence. We find that for all test set predictions, our best model predicts 77 sentences with more than one Arg1 (7.53% of all sentences predicted to have a relation). It also predicts 44 sentences with more than one Arg2 (4.31% of all sentences predicted to have a relation). This probably arises from duplicating those training instances with more than one relation (cf. Section 3.1). Later in this section, we show how the sense classifier can be used model to choose among multiple predicted arguments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Arg1-Arg2 Arg2-Arg1 Precision Recall F 1 Precision Recall F 1 LSTM +",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "As noted earlier, the order of arguments in an intra-sentential implicit relation is not fixed. So we have also correlated model performance with argument order. Of the 5,157 sentences overall with intra-sentential implicit relations, 4,665 (90.5%) have arguments in Arg1-Arg2 order. In the 60/20/20 split test set, this imbalance is higher across the 987 intra-sentential implicit relations, with 914 (92.6%) showing the more common Arg1-Arg2 order. Performance of the model in predicting argument order is shown in Table 4 . Note that a match of argument order here does not imply exact match of arguments in the previous evaluation. However, all models are more accurate in predicting the more frequent Arg1-Arg2 order than Arg2-Arg1 order, although the performance difference is less with BERT-based models than with LSTM-based models, suggesting BERT can deal with under-represented data better.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 517,
"end": 524,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "For completeness, we also analyze the best model's argument identification performance under different conditions. First, we consider that part of the 60/20/20 split test set whose sentences contain more than one intra-sentential implicit relations. For a fair comparison, we ensure that all single-relation tokens derived from the same sentence are in the test set (36 tokens). We further divide these tokens into ones whose relation is further left in the sentence and ones whose relation is further right. The top part of Table 5 shows the performance of the fine-tuned BERT model with parse tree features on these sets. Compared with the original test set, the overall performance on relations derived from sentences with multiple relations is much worse. This is expected as the training set for argument identification assumed that a sentence can only have at most one intra-sentential implicit relation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 525,
"end": 532,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": "TABREF7"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We next examine performance for different sense labels, based on the four most frequent senses in the test set -those that appear more than 100 times. The bottom part of Table 5 shows that our model performed best on CONTINGENCY.CAUSE.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 177,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": "TABREF7"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Inspection of the True Positives shows this to result from Arg2 of these relations often being headed by a AltLex token with Part-of-speech tag VBG, which uniquely conveys the sense CONTIN-GENCY.CAUSE.RESULT. The model can thus easily learn to recognize these arguments using the parse tree features.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Sense Classification Cross-validation results for Precision, Recall, and F 1 for the top four senses recognized by our sense classifier are shown in Table 6. The complete performance breakdown is given in Table 14 in Appendix A.3, along with a confusion matrix (Figure 3) and results on the test set in the 60/20/20 random split (Table 13 ). As the distribution of senses is imbalanced, we calculate overall performance by averaging performance for each sense, weighted by its frequency in the test set. Note that the overall F 1 for intra-sentential implicits is much higher than 50.41 reported in Liang et al. (2020) where a LSTM-based model is used. The overall accuracy of our sense classifier on cross-validation is 69.54%, and that on the test set in the 60/20/20 random split is 75.19%. From the results, we can see that the performance for CONTINGENCY.PURPOSE is very high, with F 1 exceeding the weighted average by almost 20 points. We speculate that this is due to the fact that over 90% of CONTINGENCY.PURPOSE labels are on relations where Arg2 begins with a free \"to clause\" and there are few other intra-sentential implicits labelled CONTINGENCY.PURPOSE.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 599,
"end": 618,
"text": "Liang et al. (2020)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 213,
"text": "Table 14",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 271,
"text": "(Figure 3)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 338,
"text": "(Table 13",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Our sense classifier is trained using gold argument spans taken from the PDTB-3. In reality, such gold annotations will rarely be available. Thus, we also use predicted arguments from our argument identification model as inputs to test the ability of our sense classifier. Specifically, we first obtain test set sentences with intra-sentential implicit relations and their parse trees. Then we feed those to our argument identification model to get predicted arguments. These predicted arguments are then fed in to our sense classifier together with the parse tree features. If the argument identification model fails to predict any arguments for any sentences, we ignore them in our evaluation. Table 15 in Appendix A.3 shows the sense classification results using predicted arguments and, for comparison, the results using the gold arguments. Note that as we dropped some sentences, the results with gold arguments are slightly different from those of the original test set. Because the performance drop is small going from gold arguments to predicted arguments, we can argue that our models can be used as a pipeline for handling intra-sentential implicit relations in shallow discourse parsing with the input simply being a sentence. We noted in Section 3.1 that our argument identification model might predict multiple Arg1s and/or Arg2s for a given sentence. We therefore assessed whether the sense classifier could be used to decide which of the predicted arguments to use. Specifically, we identify cases where one argument has a single prediction but there are multiple predictions for the other argument. For each Arg1-Arg2 pair, we use the sense classifier to predict the sense label and its likelihood. Comparing these likelihoods, we select the pair with the highest certainty, ignoring cases where the predicted senses are the same for all pairs. We also implement a baseline of always choosing the pair with the most frequent sense, which is CONTINGENCY.CAUSE. The 60/20/20 split test set shows 34 cases in which there are multiple predictions of Arg1 for a single Arg2. In 23 out of these 34 instances, the correct Arg1 is associated with the pair with the highest likelihood. The baseline only gets 13 cases correct. Similarly, the test set shows 23 cases in which there are multiple predictions of Arg2 for a single Arg1. In 13 of these 23 instances, the pair for which the sense classifier assigns the highest priority correctly identifies which Arg2 to use. The baseline only gets 9 cases correct. While further analysis is needed, this does show that the sense classifier can contribute to selecting the right argument from the set of predicted argument candidates.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 696,
"end": 704,
"text": "Table 15",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to attempt to identify the arguments of intrasentential implicit discourse relations in the framework of the PDTB-3, as well as their order and at least one of their sense relations. We used a model architecture similar to models of a sequence tag-ging task, and concluded that BERT-based models have better performance than LSTM-based models in both exactly matching gold annotations of arguments and correctly predicting the order of Arg1 and Arg2. We confirmed that using parse trees features as input to the model assists with these tasks. We also provide evidence that our sense classifier, together with the argument recognizer, can be used as a pipeline for handling intra-sentential implicit relations. We also find that the sense classifier can be used to aid the selection of the right argument from the set of predicted argument candidates.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and Future Work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Our methods have several limitations. First, we assumed every sentence can have at most one intrasentential implicit relation, whereas in reality, multiple such relations are possible (cf. Table 1 ). Secondly, our approach does not support the case of discontinuous argument spans. Thirdly, we have ignored implicit relations \"linked\" to explicit relations (either intra-sentential or inter-sentential). Finally, although we have followed the lead of Shi and Demberg (2017) in assessing performance using cross-validation because it is more reliable than choosing a specific test set, we did not cast all our results in those terms. In the future, we plan to address these problems and develop methods that can identify all existing relations within the sentence. ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 451,
"end": 473,
"text": "Shi and Demberg (2017)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 196,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and Future Work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "In this section, we provide the results of the sequence tagging objective for all models variants as well as the results of argument order prediction. All results are reported on the test set. Table 8 shows results for our baseline LSTM model using GloVe word embeddings. Table 9 then shows results for the model when GloVe word embedding are replacrd with BERT embeddings. There is a large increase in Recall, with no drop in Precision except for O labels. Table 10 shows results when parse tree features are added to the model. Here, there is an increase in Recall for Arg1, and while Recall for Arg2 decreases somewhat, it is accompanied by an increase in Precision. Then, we experiment with the vanilla BERT model and fine-tuning it on our dataset. The results are provided in Table 11 . We can again observe a slight increase in performance, showcasing the power of BERT, even without the parse tree features. Finally, the last model we implement is BERT taking additional parse tree features fine-tuned on our dataset. The results are shown in Table 12 . We can see that this is the best performing model for argument identification, proving that both BERT and parse tree features can improve performance. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 193,
"end": 200,
"text": "Table 8",
"ref_id": "TABREF12"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 279,
"text": "Table 9",
"ref_id": "TABREF13"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 466,
"text": "Table 10",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 781,
"end": 789,
"text": "Table 11",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 1050,
"end": 1058,
"text": "Table 12",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.2 Additional Results for Argument Identification",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In this section, we provide the full breakdown of performance of our sense classifier on each sense label. The results are provided in Table 13 . Note that we only included senses existing in the test set. We provide a confusion matrix in Figure 3 . In addition, we also provide results using 10-fold crossvalidation in Table 14 . We also provide the full comparison for sense classification results using predicted arguments versus using gold arguments in Table 15 . We can observe that for most senses, results using predicted arguments have slight inferior performance than those using gold arguments. For cases where results using predicted arguments are better, they are all under-represented senses in the dataset. C o n t i n g e n c y . C a u s e + B e l i e f C o n t i n g e n c y . C o n d i t i o n C o n t i n g e n c y . P u r p o s e E x p a n s i o n . C o n j u n c t i o n E x p a n s i o n . D i s j u n c t i o n E x p a n s i o n . E q u i v a l e n c e E x p a n s i o n . I n s t a n t i a t i o n E x p a n s i o n . L e v e l -o f -d e t a i l E x p a n s i o n . M a n n e r E x p a n s True label 1 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 3 224 7 2 5 5 0 0 1 22 7 3 4 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 37 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 229 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 0 8 8 1 1 1 103 0 0 1 4 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 22 5 3 2 2 0 0 3 64 12 1 1 2 0 0 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 28 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 1 0 0 2 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 27 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 30 0 ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 143,
"text": "Table 13",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 247,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 328,
"text": "Table 14",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 457,
"end": 465,
"text": "Table 15",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.3 Additional Results for Sense Classification",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "While the arguments to some explicit discourse relations can also appear in either order, Arg2 is still bound to the explicit conjunction, so its relative position can be easily identified.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This work was supported in part by the UKRI Centre for Doctoral Training in Natural Language Processing (UKRI grant EP/S022481/1), the University of Edinburgh, and Huawei. We would like to thank Hannah Rohde and anonymous CODI reviewers for their helpful feedback.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The distribution of intra-sentential implicit sense labels is shown in Table 7 . We can see that the sense labels are very imbalanced. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 78,
"text": "Table 7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A.1 Distribution of Sense Label",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Deep enhanced representation for implicit discourse relation recognition",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hongxiao",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bai",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hai",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhao",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "571--583",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hongxiao Bai and Hai Zhao. 2018. Deep enhanced representation for implicit discourse relation recog- nition. In Proceedings of the 27th International Con- ference on Computational Linguistics, pages 571- 583, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "A discourse-aware attention model for abstractive summarization of long documents",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Arman",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cohan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Franck",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dernoncourt",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Soon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Doo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Trung",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kim",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Seokhwan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bui",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Walter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kim",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nazli",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goharian",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "",
"pages": "615--621",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/N18-2097"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Arman Cohan, Franck Dernoncourt, Doo Soon Kim, Trung Bui, Seokhwan Kim, Walter Chang, and Na- zli Goharian. 2018. A discourse-aware attention model for abstractive summarization of long docu- ments. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 615-621, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Improving implicit discourse relation classification by modeling inter-dependencies of discourse units in a paragraph",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Zeyu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dai",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ruihong",
"middle": [],
"last": "Huang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "141--151",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/N18-1013"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Zeyu Dai and Ruihong Huang. 2018. Improving im- plicit discourse relation classification by modeling inter-dependencies of discourse units in a paragraph. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics: Human Language Technolo- gies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 141-151, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jacob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Devlin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ming-Wei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kenton",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kristina",
"middle": [],
"last": "Toutanova",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4171--4186",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/N19-1423"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Allennlp: A deep semantic natural language processing platform",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Matt",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gardner",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Joel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grus",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Neumann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Oyvind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tafjord",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Pradeep",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dasigi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nelson",
"middle": [
"F"
],
"last": "Liu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Matthew",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Peters",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schmitz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Luke",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zettlemoyer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Matt Gardner, Joel Grus, Mark Neumann, Oyvind Tafjord, Pradeep Dasigi, Nelson F. Liu, Matthew E. Peters, Michael Schmitz, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Allennlp: A deep semantic natural language processing platform. CoRR, abs/1803.07640.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Long short-term memory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sepp",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hochreiter",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J\u00fcrgen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schmidhuber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Neural Comput",
"volume": "9",
"issue": "8",
"pages": "1735--1780",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sepp Hochreiter and J\u00fcrgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural Comput., 9(8):1735-1780.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Discourse complements lexical semantics for nonfactoid answer reranking",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Peter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jansen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mihai",
"middle": [],
"last": "Surdeanu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Peter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clark",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "977--986",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.3115/v1/P14-1092"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Peter Jansen, Mihai Surdeanu, and Peter Clark. 2014. Discourse complements lexical semantics for non- factoid answer reranking. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 977-986, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Association for Computational Linguistics",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "on Discourse and Dialogue",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "226--231",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 226-231, Stock- holm, Sweden. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data",
"authors": [
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Lafferty",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mccallum",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [
"C N"
],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "282--289",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "John D. Lafferty, Andrew McCallum, and Fernando C. N. Pereira. 2001. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling se- quence data. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2001), Williams College, Williamstown, MA, USA, June 28 -July 1, 2001, pages 282-289. Morgan Kaufmann.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Complexity of dependencies in discourse: Are dependencies in discourse more complex than in syntax",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rashmi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Prasad",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nikhil",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dinesh",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "12--23",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alan Lee, Rashmi Prasad, Aravind Joshi, Nikhil Di- nesh, and Bonnie Webber. 2006. Complexity of de- pendencies in discourse: Are dependencies in dis- course more complex than in syntax. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, pages 12-23.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Assessing the discourse factors that influence the quality of machine translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jessy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Junyi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marine",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ani",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carpuat",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nenkova",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "",
"pages": "283--288",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.3115/v1/P14-2047"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Junyi Jessy Li, Marine Carpuat, and Ani Nenkova. 2014. Assessing the discourse factors that influ- ence the quality of machine translation. In Proceed- ings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Pa- pers), pages 283-288, Baltimore, Maryland. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Extending implicit discourse relation recognition to the PDTB-3",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Li",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Zheng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhao",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "Proceedings of the First Workshop on Computational Approaches to Discourse",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "135--147",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/2020.codi-1.14"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Li Liang, Zheng Zhao, and Bonnie Webber. 2020. Ex- tending implicit discourse relation recognition to the PDTB-3. In Proceedings of the First Work- shop on Computational Approaches to Discourse, pages 135-147, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "A pdtb-styled end-to-end discourse parser",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ziheng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Min-Yen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hwee Tou Ng",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Natural Language Engineering",
"volume": "20",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "151--184",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.1017/S1351324912000307"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ziheng Lin, Hwee Tou Ng, and Min-Yen Kan. 2014. A pdtb-styled end-to-end discourse parser. Natural Language Engineering, 20(2):151-184.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Recognizing implicit discourse relations via repeated reading: Neural networks with multi-level attention",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sujian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1224--1233",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/D16-1130"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yang Liu and Sujian Li. 2016. Recognizing implicit discourse relations via repeated reading: Neural net- works with multi-level attention. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 1224-1233, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "William",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sandra",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Mann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Thompson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Text",
"volume": "8",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "243--281",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "William C Mann and Sandra A Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional the- ory of text organization. Text, 8(3):243-281.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mitchell",
"middle": [
"P"
],
"last": "Marcus",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Beatrice",
"middle": [],
"last": "Santorini",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mary",
"middle": [
"Ann"
],
"last": "Marcinkiewicz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "313--330",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computa- tional Linguistics, 19(2):313-330.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Constrained decoding for text-level discourse parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Philippe",
"middle": [],
"last": "Muller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stergos",
"middle": [],
"last": "Afantenos",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Pascal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Denis",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nicholas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Asher",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1883--1900",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Philippe Muller, Stergos Afantenos, Pascal Denis, and Nicholas Asher. 2012. Constrained decoding for text-level discourse parsing. In Proceedings of COL- ING 2012, pages 1883-1900, Mumbai, India. The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Adam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Paszke",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gross",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Francisco",
"middle": [],
"last": "Massa",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Adam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lerer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bradbury",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Gregory",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chanan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Trevor",
"middle": [],
"last": "Killeen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Zeming",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Natalia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gimelshein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Luca",
"middle": [],
"last": "Antiga",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alban",
"middle": [],
"last": "Desmaison",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Andreas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kopf",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Edward",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Zachary",
"middle": [],
"last": "Devito",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Raison",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alykhan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tejani",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sasank",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chilamkurthy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Benoit",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steiner",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Junjie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bai",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Soumith",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chintala",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems",
"volume": "32",
"issue": "",
"pages": "8024--8035",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Te- jani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. Py- torch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d Alch\u00e9-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Gar- nett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 32, pages 8024-8035. Curran Asso- ciates, Inc.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Glove: Global vectors for word representation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jeffrey",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pennington",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Socher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1532--1543",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word rep- resentation. In Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rashmi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Prasad",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nikhil",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dinesh",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eleni",
"middle": [],
"last": "Miltsakaki",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Livio",
"middle": [],
"last": "Robaldo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'08)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Milt- sakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, and Bon- nie Webber. 2008. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'08), Marrakech, Morocco. European Lan- guage Resources Association (ELRA).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Towards full text shallow discourse relation annotation: Experiments with cross-paragraph implicit relations in the PDTB",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rashmi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Prasad",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Katherine",
"middle": [
"Forbes"
],
"last": "Riley",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "7--16",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/W17-5502"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rashmi Prasad, Katherine Forbes Riley, and Alan Lee. 2017. Towards full text shallow discourse relation annotation: Experiments with cross-paragraph im- plicit relations in the PDTB. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dia- logue, pages 7-16, Saarbr\u00fccken, Germany. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Realization of discourse relations by other means: Alternative lexicalizations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Rashmi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Prasad",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Coling 2010: Posters",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1023--1031",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rashmi Prasad, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2010. Realization of discourse relations by other means: Alternative lexicalizations. In Coling 2010: Posters, pages 1023-1031, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Text chunking using transformation-based learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lance",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mitchell P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ramshaw",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marcus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Natural language processing using very large corpora",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "157--176",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lance A Ramshaw and Mitchell P Marcus. 1999. Text chunking using transformation-based learning. In Natural language processing using very large cor- pora, pages 157-176. Springer.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "On the need of cross validation for discourse relation classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Wei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Vera",
"middle": [],
"last": "Demberg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "",
"pages": "150--156",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wei Shi and Vera Demberg. 2017. On the need of cross validation for discourse relation classification. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the Euro- pean Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers, pages 150-156, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Next sentence prediction helps implicit discourse relation classification within and across domains",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Wei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Vera",
"middle": [],
"last": "Demberg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "5790--5796",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/D19-1586"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wei Shi and Vera Demberg. 2019. Next sentence pre- diction helps implicit discourse relation classifica- tion within and across domains. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 5790-5796, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Discourse processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Manfred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stede",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies",
"volume": "4",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "1--165",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Manfred Stede. 2011. Discourse processing. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 4(3):1- 165.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Parallel discourse annotations on a corpus of short texts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Manfred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stede",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stergos",
"middle": [],
"last": "Afantenos",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Andreas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Peldszus",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nicholas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Asher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J\u00e9r\u00e9my",
"middle": [],
"last": "Perret",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1051--1058",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Manfred Stede, Stergos Afantenos, Andreas Peldszus, Nicholas Asher, and J\u00e9r\u00e9my Perret. 2016. Parallel discourse annotations on a corpus of short texts. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16), pages 1051-1058, Portoro\u017e, Slovenia. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Discourse relation prediction: Revisiting word pairs with convolutional networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Siddharth",
"middle": [],
"last": "Varia",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hidey",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tuhin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chakrabarty",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "442--452",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/W19-5951"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Siddharth Varia, Christopher Hidey, and Tuhin Chakrabarty. 2019. Discourse relation prediction: Revisiting word pairs with convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 442-452, Stock- holm, Sweden. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "A refined endto-end discourse parser",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jianxiang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Man",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning -Shared Task",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "17--24",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/K15-2002"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jianxiang Wang and Man Lan. 2015. A refined end- to-end discourse parser. In Proceedings of the Nine- teenth Conference on Computational Natural Lan- guage Learning -Shared Task, pages 17-24, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "The penn discourse treebank 3.0 annotation manual",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rashmi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Prasad",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bonnie Webber, Rashmi Prasad, Alan Lee, and Ar- avind Joshi. 2019. The penn discourse treebank 3.0 annotation manual. https://catalog. ldc.upenn.edu/docs/LDC2019T05/ PDTB3-Annotation-Manual.pdf.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Thomas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wolf",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lysandre",
"middle": [],
"last": "Debut",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Victor",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sanh",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Julien",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chaumond",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Clement",
"middle": [],
"last": "Delangue",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Anthony",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Pierric",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cistac",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rault",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Remi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Louf",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Morgan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Funtowicz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Joe",
"middle": [],
"last": "Davison",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shleifer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Clara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Patrick Von Platen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yacine",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ma",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Julien",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jernite",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Canwen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Plu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Teven",
"middle": [
"Le"
],
"last": "Xu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sylvain",
"middle": [],
"last": "Scao",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mariama",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gugger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Drame",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "38--45",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-demos.6"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtow- icz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Trans- formers: State-of-the-art natural language process- ing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "The CoNLL-2015 shared task on shallow discourse parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nianwen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xue",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sameer",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hwee Tou Ng",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rashmi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pradhan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [],
"last": "Prasad",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Attapol",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bryant",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rutherford",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning -Shared Task",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--16",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/K15-2001"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nianwen Xue, Hwee Tou Ng, Sameer Pradhan, Rashmi Prasad, Christopher Bryant, and Attapol Rutherford. 2015. The CoNLL-2015 shared task on shallow discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the Nine- teenth Conference on Computational Natural Lan- guage Learning -Shared Task, pages 1-16, Beijing, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "CoNLL 2016 shared task on multilingual shallow discourse parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nianwen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xue",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sameer",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hwee Tou Ng",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Attapol",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pradhan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rutherford",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chuan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hongmin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proceedings of the CoNLL-16 shared task",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--19",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/K16-2001"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nianwen Xue, Hwee Tou Ng, Sameer Pradhan, At- tapol Rutherford, Bonnie Webber, Chuan Wang, and Hongmin Wang. 2016. CoNLL 2016 shared task on multilingual shallow discourse parsing. In Pro- ceedings of the CoNLL-16 shared task, pages 1- 19, Berlin, Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF33": {
"ref_id": "b33",
"title": "The DIS-RPT 2019 shared task on elementary discourse unit segmentation and connective detection",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Amir",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zeldes",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Debopam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Das",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Erick",
"middle": [
"Galani"
],
"last": "Maziero",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Juliano",
"middle": [],
"last": "Antonio",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mikel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Iruskieta",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "97--104",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/W19-2713"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Amir Zeldes, Debopam Das, Erick Galani Maziero, Ju- liano Antonio, and Mikel Iruskieta. 2019. The DIS- RPT 2019 shared task on elementary discourse unit segmentation and connective detection. In Proceed- ings of the Workshop on Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking 2019, pages 97-104, Minneapolis, MN. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Architecture of our proposed argument identification model.",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "o m p a r i s o n . C o n c e s s i o n C o m p a r i s o n . C o n t r a s t C o n t i n g e n c y . C a u s e",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "i o n . S u b s t i t u t i o n T e m p o r a l . A s y n c h r o n o u s T e m p o r a l . S y n c h r o n o u s Predicted label",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Confusion matrix of our sense classifier on the test set.",
"num": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"text": ""
},
"TABREF3": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>model</td><td>Precision</td><td>Arg1 Recall</td><td>F1</td><td>Precision</td><td>Arg2 Recall</td><td>F1</td></tr><tr><td>LSTM + BERT \u2020</td><td>44.</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>",
"text": "Results of exact match for Arg1 and Arg2. \u2020 denotes that a pre-trained BERT is used for word embedding, and * denotes significant improvement over BERT fine-tuned with p < 0.05. Significance test was performed by estimating variance of the model from 5 random initialization.51\u00b16.14 51.23\u00b15.48 47.59\u00b14.76 58.59\u00b12.82 62.70\u00b12.21 60.51\u00b11.70 LSTM + BERT \u2020 + parse tree 44.82\u00b15.88 53.58\u00b12.79 48.54\u00b13.56 60.48\u00b12.30 61.64\u00b12.68 61.00\u00b11.70 BERT fine-tuned 48.22\u00b15.55 53.26\u00b12.94 50.42\u00b13.58 58.59\u00b13.29 58.64\u00b12.24 58.64\u00b11.86 BERT fine-tuned + parse tree 49.74\u00b13.41 53.94\u00b12.93 51.62\u00b11.85 60.17\u00b12.49 60.37\u00b12.52 60.22\u00b11.78"
},
"TABREF5": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"text": "Results of argument order prediction with either Arg1-Arg2 (914 instances from the test set) and Arg2-Arg1 (73 instances from the test set). \u2020 denotes a pre-trained BERT is used for word embedding."
},
"TABREF7": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Sense</td><td>Precision</td><td>BERT + Parse Tree Recall</td><td>F 1</td></tr><tr><td>Contingency.Cause</td><td colspan=\"3\">76.50 \u00b1 4.22 74.60 \u00b1 4.89 75.31 \u00b1 2.14</td></tr><tr><td>Contingency.Purpose</td><td colspan=\"3\">86.78 \u00b1 2.05 90.49 \u00b1 2.66 88.56 \u00b1 1.57</td></tr><tr><td>Expansion.Conjunction</td><td colspan=\"3\">73.99 \u00b1 8.05 70.33 \u00b1 5.55 71.82 \u00b1 5.03</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Expansion.Level-of-detail 57.79 \u00b1 4.70 48.23 \u00b1 3.12 52.37 \u00b1 2.06</td></tr><tr><td>Overall</td><td colspan=\"3\">70.86 \u00b1 1.45 69.54 \u00b1 1.30 69.65 \u00b1 1.36</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Results of argument identification for Arg1 and Arg2 for our best model under different conditions."
},
"TABREF8": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"text": "Cross-validation results for sense classification."
},
"TABREF10": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>: The distribution of Level-2 labels for intra-</td></tr><tr><td>sentential implicit relations in our dataset. Comp is</td></tr><tr><td>short for Comparison, Cont is short for Contingency,</td></tr><tr><td>and S.A. is short for SpeechAct.</td></tr></table>",
"text": ""
},
"TABREF12": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Label</td><td colspan=\"2\">Precision Recall</td><td>F 1</td></tr><tr><td>B-Arg1</td><td>48.10</td><td colspan=\"2\">52.35 50.14</td></tr><tr><td>B-Arg2</td><td>60.88</td><td colspan=\"2\">69.11 64.73</td></tr><tr><td>I-Arg1</td><td>63.34</td><td colspan=\"2\">65.59 64.45</td></tr><tr><td>I-Arg2</td><td>67.42</td><td colspan=\"2\">70.53 68.94</td></tr><tr><td>O</td><td>88.84</td><td colspan=\"2\">96.47 92.50</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Results of the baseline LSTM model on test set using GloVe word embedding."
},
"TABREF13": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Label</td><td colspan=\"2\">Precision Recall</td><td>F 1</td></tr><tr><td>B-Arg1</td><td>50.29</td><td colspan=\"2\">56.77 53.33</td></tr><tr><td>B-Arg2</td><td>63.57</td><td colspan=\"2\">61.13 62.33</td></tr><tr><td>I-Arg1</td><td>59.68</td><td colspan=\"2\">69.55 64.24</td></tr><tr><td>I-Arg2</td><td>73.08</td><td colspan=\"2\">66.74 69.77</td></tr><tr><td>O</td><td>88.86</td><td colspan=\"2\">96.51 92.53</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Results of the LSTM model on test set using BERT word embedding."
},
"TABREF14": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"text": "Results of the LSTM model on test set using BERT word embedding and parse tree feature."
},
"TABREF16": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Label</td><td colspan=\"2\">Precision Recall</td><td>F 1</td></tr><tr><td>B-Arg1</td><td>52.65</td><td colspan=\"2\">58.74 55.53</td></tr><tr><td>B-Arg2</td><td>61.27</td><td colspan=\"2\">66.10 63.60</td></tr><tr><td>I-Arg1</td><td>63.52</td><td colspan=\"2\">70.54 66.85</td></tr><tr><td>I-Arg2</td><td>69.32</td><td colspan=\"2\">71.93 70.60</td></tr><tr><td>O</td><td>89.10</td><td colspan=\"2\">96.46 92.64</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Results on test set using fine-tuning BERT model without parse tree features."
},
"TABREF17": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"text": "Results on test set using fine-tuning BERT model with parse tree features."
},
"TABREF19": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Sense</td><td>Precision</td><td>Recall</td><td>F 1</td></tr><tr><td>Comparison.Concession</td><td>21.75</td><td/><td/></tr></table>",
"text": "Full results on test set for sense classification. We only included senses existing in the test set. \u00b1 21.91 17.62 \u00b1 19.07 17.15 \u00b1 15.73 Comparison.Contrast 45.79 \u00b1 16.14 47.23 \u00b1 12.42 44.93 \u00b1 12.39 Contingency.Cause 76.50 \u00b1 4.22 74.60 \u00b1 4.89 75.31 \u00b1 2.14 Contingency.Cause+Belief 11.44 \u00b1 8.82 21.78 \u00b1 17.88 14.62 \u00b1 11.41 Contingency.Condition 73.29 \u00b1 9.99 77.34 \u00b1 8.69 74.28 \u00b1 3.60 Contingency.Purpose 86.78 \u00b1 2.05 90.49 \u00b1 2.66 88.56 \u00b1 1.57 Expansion.Conjunction 73.99 \u00b1 8.05 70.33 \u00b1 5.55 71.82 \u00b1 5.03 Expansion.Disjunction 0.00 \u00b1 0.00 0.00 \u00b1 0.00 0.00 \u00b1 0.00 Expansion.Equivalence 24.83 \u00b1 31.10 20.67 \u00b1 21.33 20.67 \u00b1 21.33 Expansion.Instantiation 25.97 \u00b1 14.89 39.10 \u00b1 24.73 29.11 \u00b1 13.85 Expansion.Level-of-detail 57.79 \u00b1 4.70 48.23 \u00b1 3.12 52.37 \u00b1 2.06 Expansion.Manner 44.10 \u00b1 12.40 47.07 \u00b1 9.91 44.18 \u00b1 7.96 Expansion.Substitution 68.01 \u00b1 22.64 66.02 \u00b1 15.04 65.23 \u00b1 17.92 Temporal.Asynchronous 57.88 \u00b1 13.06 51.39 \u00b1 13.06 52.81 \u00b1 9.81 Temporal.Synchronous 56.99 \u00b1 13.29 53.73 \u00b1 17.83 53.84 \u00b1 13.07 Micro Average 69.54 \u00b1 1.30 69.54 \u00b1 1.30 69.54 \u00b1 1.30 Weighted Average 70.86 \u00b1 1.45 69.54 \u00b1 1.30 69.65 \u00b1 1.36"
},
"TABREF20": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"text": "Full results on cross-validation for sense classification."
},
"TABREF23": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"text": "Comparison of full results on test set for sense classification using predicted arguments versus using gold arguments."
}
}
}
} |