File size: 145,862 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 | {
"paper_id": "2021",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T07:58:13.481525Z"
},
"title": "Learning Clause Representation from Dependency-Anchor Graph for Connective Prediction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yanjun",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gao",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Pennsylvania State University",
"location": {}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Kenneth",
"middle": [],
"last": "Huang",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Pennsylvania State University",
"location": {}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Passonneau",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Pennsylvania State University",
"location": {}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Semantic representation that supports the choice of an appropriate connective between pairs of clauses inherently addresses discourse coherence, which is important for tasks such as narrative understanding, argumentation, and discourse parsing. We propose a novel clause embedding method that applies graph learning to a data structure we refer to as a dependencyanchor graph. The dependency anchor graph incorporates two kinds of syntactic information, constituency structure and dependency relations, to highlight the subject and verb phrase relation. This enhances coherencerelated aspects of representation. We design a neural model to learn a semantic representation for clauses from graph convolution over latent representations of the subject and verb phrase. We evaluate our method on two new datasets: a subset of a large corpus where the source texts are published novels, and a new dataset collected from students' essays. The results demonstrate a significant improvement over tree-based models, confirming the importance of emphasizing the subject and verb phrase. The performance gap between the two datasets illustrates the challenges of analyzing student's written text, plus a potential evaluation task for coherence modeling and an application for suggesting revisions to students.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "2021",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Semantic representation that supports the choice of an appropriate connective between pairs of clauses inherently addresses discourse coherence, which is important for tasks such as narrative understanding, argumentation, and discourse parsing. We propose a novel clause embedding method that applies graph learning to a data structure we refer to as a dependencyanchor graph. The dependency anchor graph incorporates two kinds of syntactic information, constituency structure and dependency relations, to highlight the subject and verb phrase relation. This enhances coherencerelated aspects of representation. We design a neural model to learn a semantic representation for clauses from graph convolution over latent representations of the subject and verb phrase. We evaluate our method on two new datasets: a subset of a large corpus where the source texts are published novels, and a new dataset collected from students' essays. The results demonstrate a significant improvement over tree-based models, confirming the importance of emphasizing the subject and verb phrase. The performance gap between the two datasets illustrates the challenges of analyzing student's written text, plus a potential evaluation task for coherence modeling and an application for suggesting revisions to students.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The clause is a fundamental unit in coherent text. Much work in NLP investigates how clauses combine to form larger units, ultimately spanning a whole discourse (Wang et al., 2017; Ji and Eisenstein, 2014) ; how to decompose complex sentences into distinct propositions (Wang et al., 2018; Narayan et al., 2017) ; how to identify explicit or implicit semantic relations between clauses (Lee and Goldwasser, 2019; Rutherford and Xue, 2015) , or how to select a connective to link multiple clauses into a complex sentence (Nie et al., 2019; Malmi et al., 2018) . In this paper, we",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 161,
"end": 180,
"text": "(Wang et al., 2017;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF39"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 205,
"text": "Ji and Eisenstein, 2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 289,
"text": "(Wang et al., 2018;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF40"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 311,
"text": "Narayan et al., 2017)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 412,
"text": "(Lee and Goldwasser, 2019;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 438,
"text": "Rutherford and Xue, 2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
},
{
"start": 520,
"end": 538,
"text": "(Nie et al., 2019;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 539,
"end": 558,
"text": "Malmi et al., 2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Bob cooked Tia a burger. P1, Q1 alth P2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Bob cooked himself a burger. P1, Q2 bec Q1 Bob was hungry.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "P1, Q3 none Q2 Tia was hungry.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "P1, Q4 alth Q3 Bob was thirsty.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "P2, Q1 bec Q4 Tia was thirsty.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "P2, Q2 alth alth(ough): contrast P2, Q3 alth bec(ause): precondition P2, Q4 none Figure 1 : For the propositions P m , Q n to be joined by although or because, P m and Q n . must have some semantic commonality to allow for contrast or causation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 89,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Four cases allow although. The two cases that allow because have a strong semantic relation between the predicates (make someone a burger, be hungry) and, there is no conflict in the to-object of the first clause and the subject of the second. The remaining two cases have no commonality, and neither connective can occur.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "focus on clause representation to support accurate connective prediction, a task which is important for coherence modeling (Pishdad et al., 2020) , finegrained opinion mining (Wiegand et al., 2015) , argument mining (Kuribayashi et al., 2019; Jo et al., 2020) and argumentation (Park and Cardie, 2014) . We present a case for a model that learns from a novel graph we refer to as a dependency-anchor graph, which retains information from dependency parses and constituency parses of input sentences that is critical for identification of the core proposition of a clause, while omitting structural information that is less relevant. We assume that determining whether two clauses can be joined by a connective, and what connective to choose, depends primarily on the main verb in each clause, and on the arguments that occur in both clauses, particularly the grammatical subject. There are a large number of connectives and connective phrases in English; e.g., the Penn Discourse Tree Bank (Prasad et al., 2008) has 141. Here we illustrate the nature of the problem with respect to the two connectives, although and because. Figure 1 illustrates how the choice of connective to join two simple clauses P m and Q n , and whether a connective is appropriate at all, depends on the main verbs and their arguments. Use of although requires only some dimension of contrast between the joined clauses, while because requires that Q n be a precondition for P m . The table lists two variants of P m with cook as the main verb, one with three distinct entities (Bob, Tia, a burger) and one with two (Bob, burger). These are considered in turn with four variants of Q n where the predicate is either closely related to cook (e.g.be hungry) or not (e.g., be thirsty), and the two propositions share an argument or not. In two of the eight cases, neither connective makes sense because there is no other cohesive relation (e.g., coreference, association) between the clauses. In four cases, there is some similarity and some contrast, which licenses although, and in two cases the more restrictive condition that licenses because is present. These examples illustrate that both the choice of verb, and the grammatical relations of the arguments to the verb, affect whether a connective can be used, and which one. Adding modifiers on the subject or object, or VP or sentence adverbials, would have little effect on choice of connective in these sentences.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 145,
"text": "(Pishdad et al., 2020)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 197,
"text": "(Wiegand et al., 2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF44"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 242,
"text": "(Kuribayashi et al., 2019;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 259,
"text": "Jo et al., 2020)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 301,
"text": "(Park and Cardie, 2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 990,
"end": 1011,
"text": "(Prasad et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1125,
"end": 1131,
"text": "Figure",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We assume that training clause representations based on connective prediction will be useful for developing representations that capture aspects of coherence, such as those shown in Fig 1. Pishdad et al. (2020) examine a series of coherence evaluation tasks that capture different aspects of coherence. They argue that connective substitution is one of four critical tests of coherence modeling. For example, connectives that express temporal succession should not be substitutable for connectives that express simultaneity, as doing so would change the meaning. Studies of students' writing skills look at connectives with respect to quality of students' argumentative writing (Kuhn et al., 2016) , and whether automated assessments differ for low-skilled versus high-skilled writers (Perin and Lauterbach, 2018) . Although students can fill in correct connectives eliminated from source texts, they typically do not use connectives as precisely in their own writing (Millis et al., 1993) . NLP applications aimed at supporting student revision use connectives as an indication of writing quality (Nguyen et al., 2016; Afrin and Litman, 2018) , but do not help students choose correct connectives. To better evaluate model performance in connective selection, and to highlight differences between text from skillful versus developing writers, we provide two large datasets of clauses linked by connectives drawn from published fiction and from students' written text. We demonstrate the potential for a model trained on expert data to identify incorrect uses of connectives in students' writing, where students frequently misuse connectives like and.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 182,
"end": 210,
"text": "Fig 1. Pishdad et al. (2020)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 678,
"end": 697,
"text": "(Kuhn et al., 2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 785,
"end": 813,
"text": "(Perin and Lauterbach, 2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 968,
"end": 989,
"text": "(Millis et al., 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 1098,
"end": 1119,
"text": "(Nguyen et al., 2016;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 1120,
"end": 1143,
"text": "Afrin and Litman, 2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Our contributions are: 1) a data structure we refer to as a Dependency-Anchor graph that incorporates information from both dependency and constituency trees; 2) DAnCE (Dependency-Anchor graph representation for Clause Embedding), a novel neural architecture that exploits bi-LSTMs at the lower layers for learning inter-word influences, and graph learning of relational structure encoded in the dependency-anchor graph; 3) two datasets for carefully edited versus student text. Our approach outperforms the state-of-the-art on connective prediction.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The question of whether latent representations of sentence meaning can benefit from syntax has been addressed in work that compares recurrence and recursion, and finds the main benefit of recursive models to be better treatment of long-distance dependencies . Two recent works compare tree-based models derived from dependency parses with constituency parses on semantic relatedness tasks, with no clear advantage of one grammar formalism over the other (Tai et al., 2015; Ahmed et al., 2019) . As discussed in (Tai et al., 2015) , dependency trees provide a more compact structure than constituency trees, through shorter paths from the root to leaf words. Further, all of a verb's arguments are its direct dependents. The recursive structure of constituency trees, on the other hand, facilitates identification of subtrees that span more of the leaf words as one moves up the tree, and that have a compositional contribution to the meaning of the sentence. Tree-based models take input from syntactic parses and compose the latent vectors through a uni-directional traversal, where the parent node representation is the sum of the child nodes. For both formalisms, many parameters are needed to encode the child-to-parent representations. For this reason, previous work strictly limits the model dimensionality (Tai et al., 2015; Ahmed et al., 2019) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 454,
"end": 472,
"text": "(Tai et al., 2015;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 473,
"end": 492,
"text": "Ahmed et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 529,
"text": "(Tai et al., 2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 1313,
"end": 1331,
"text": "(Tai et al., 2015;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 1332,
"end": 1351,
"text": "Ahmed et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Motivation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "To combine advantageous features from both kinds of grammar formalism, we propose dependency-anchor graphs as a compact represen-tation that highlights the core elements of a proposition. We construct a graph with only selected components from two kinds of parse trees, thus limiting the number of parameters to learn. The subject of a clause and the main verb phrase are the two outer nodes in the graph, where we refer to the verb phrase node as the anchor. The subject arc from a dependency parse points from the anchor node to the subject. The anchor node is a subgraph that retains the dependency structure of words within the verb phrase. Other syntactic relations (e.g., involving words in the subject phrase or adverbial phrases), are ignored.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Motivation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "To encode the graph, we propose DAnCE, which applies graph convolution (GCN) (Kipf and Welling, 2017) to encode the arc between the subject and verb phrase. The input to the graph convolution comes from a bidirectional LSTM (Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) that encodes all the input tokens, including the words outside the subject and verb phrase. The interaction that DAnCE captures between subject and verb phrase has been essential in word representation but missing in tree based models (Weir et al., 2016; White et al., 2018) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 494,
"end": 513,
"text": "(Weir et al., 2016;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF42"
},
{
"start": 514,
"end": 533,
"text": "White et al., 2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF43"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Motivation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "We demonstrate the effectiveness of the dependency-anchor graph and DAnCE architecture through its superior performance over baselines, including tree-based models. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: we first present related work and give a detailed discussion of the Dependency-Anchor Graph and DAnCE. Then we present the datasets, experiments and discussion.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Motivation",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Much research has addressed ways to learn high quality clause representations. Xu et al. (2015) propose a shortest dependency path LSTM for sentence representation in the task of relation classification. Dai and Huang (2018) propose a BiLSTM based model that combines paragraph vectors and word vectors into clause embeddings for a situation entity classification task. Connective prediction has often been addressed: Ji and Eisenstein (2015) and Rutherford et al. (2017) use recursive neural networks with parse trees as input to predict connectives and discourse relations, with solid improvements on PDTB. Malmi et al. (2018) use a decomposable attention model to predict connectives on sentences pairs extracted from Wikipedia. Our work draws on the idea of incorporating syntax into representation for connective prediction, is constructed from its phrase-structure parse (top left) and dependency parse (bottom). Words spanning the VP subtree of the constituency parse (orange nodes) become a single anchor node whose internal structure preserves the dependencies among words in the VP. The nsubj dependent of the main verb is promoted to be a dependent of the entire anchor. specifically for clauses. Sileo et al. (2019) propose a large dataset with 170M sentence pairs with connectives for unsupervised sentence representation learning, and apply it on the SentEval task. Nie et al. 2019develop universal sentence embeddings from a connective prediction task, and create a large corpus extracted from published fiction. They achieve state-of-theart performance on predicting connectives, as well as on sentence embedding benchmarks from Sen-tEval (Conneau and Kiela, 2018) . Our work modifies the corpus from (Nie et al., 2019) to restrict the pairs of sentences for connective prediction to simple sentences. Our goal is to generate clause embeddings specifically for connective prediction, rather than universal sentence representation.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 95,
"text": "Xu et al. (2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF45"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 224,
"text": "Dai and Huang (2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 442,
"text": "Ji and Eisenstein (2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 471,
"text": "Rutherford et al. (2017)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 628,
"text": "Malmi et al. (2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 1208,
"end": 1227,
"text": "Sileo et al. (2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF35"
},
{
"start": 1655,
"end": 1680,
"text": "(Conneau and Kiela, 2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 1717,
"end": 1735,
"text": "(Nie et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "The input to DAnCE is a graph for each simple sentence that includes syntactic information from a phrase structure parse to identify the VP, and from a dependency parse to identify the grammatical subject, and dependencies within the VP.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DAnCE Architecture",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The anchor VP and its subject serve as nodes in a graph, as illustrated in Figure 2 . The Stanford CoreNLP dependency grammar has 58 dependency relations, eight of which are a type of subject (Van Valin, 2001; Schuster and Manning, 2016) . The subject in our dependency-anchor graphs can originate as any of these eight types, and is represented as a node with a single subject edge to the anchor. The anchor node has internal graph structure, that replicates the dependency relations among the words in the VP. We align two syntax parses by the words then extract the depen-dencies between words inside the anchor. Each dependency-anchor graph constitutes a complete proposition. The dependency relation from the anchor to the subject, and the other dependencies for words within the VP, differentiate words by their closeness to the root verb of the dependency parse. Words outside the subject-anchor are omitted from the graph to maintain the focus of subject-VP, but they are encoded by the BiLSTM as part of the sequence and contribute to the hidden states.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 192,
"end": 209,
"text": "(Van Valin, 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 237,
"text": "Schuster and Manning, 2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 83,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dependency-Anchor graph",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "To learn a semantic representation from a dependency-anchor graph, DAnCE has the three layers illustrated in Figure 3 . An initial embedding lookup layer retrieves word embeddings. A BiL-STM layer captures the hidden states over the input words at each time step. Finally, a graph convolution layer takes the subject word representation from the BiLSTM (the S node in Figure 3) , and an anchor embedding that is generated from an separate module (the A node in Figure 3) , to produce the final learned semantic representation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 117,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 377,
"text": "Figure 3)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 470,
"text": "Figure 3)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "The input sequence of words x i \u2208 X is first fed into a pre-trained word embedding lookup layer, using GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014) , with a bidirectional LSTM of dimension 2D, where D is the dimension of hidden states in the BiLSTM:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 134,
"text": "(Pennington et al., 2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "h i = f (x i , h i\u22121 ), h i \u2208 R 2D",
"eq_num": "(1)"
}
],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "The BiLSTM captures long-term dependencies within the clause. The resulting latent representation for the subject is fed directly to the graph convolution layer. The anchor embedding h A is computed with two alternative settings: Flat-Anchor (FA) and Graph-Anchor (GA). The main difference between the two settings is that FA treats the anchor as a sequence of words with their BiLSTM hidden states h i , and ignores the dependency relations within the anchor. GA turns the dependencies into an adjacency matrix and then generates h A G i as the anchor node representation by encoding the BiLSTM hidden states within the matrix through graph attention (GAT) (Velickovi\u0107 et al., 2018) . GAT will attend to whatever nodes are within the anchor, thus it fits well for learning the anchor representation for any length anchor. We first explain the derivation of h A G i . Following (Marcheggiani and Titov, 2017) , we treat the dependency arcs within the anchor as directed. Given the latent representations of a pair of nodes within the anchor h i , h j , and a one-hot vector for each dependency arc arc i,j , we compute an attention coefficient e i,j :",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 658,
"end": 683,
"text": "(Velickovi\u0107 et al., 2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF38"
},
{
"start": 878,
"end": 908,
"text": "(Marcheggiani and Titov, 2017)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "e i,j = a(W h h i , W d [h j ||arc i,j ])",
"eq_num": "(2)"
}
],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "where || is the concatenation operation, and a, W h , W d are learned parameters for the head and the dependent. Then we apply softmax and a Leaky ReLU activation to normalize the attention weights:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "\u03b1 i.j = LeakyReLU ( exp(e i,j ) m\u2208N A (i) exp(e i,m ) ) (3)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "where N A (i) represents all nodes in the anchor that are linked to i, including itself. Leaky Relu activation on e i,j enables the network to learn the importance of node j and arc i, j to node i. Therefore, \u03b1 i,j is a vector, whose length is the number of anchor words, that represents differential attention on word pairs associated with their dependency relations. We apply the attention weights on the node features from the first BiLSTM layer:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "h A G i = j\u2208N A (i) \u03b1 i.j W A G h j",
"eq_num": "(4)"
}
],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Again, there are two alternative settings to generate the anchor embedding. We use maxpool over all the nodes in anchor N A :",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "h A = M axpool(|| i\u2208N A h i ) if FA M axpool(|| i\u2208N A h A G i ) if GA",
"eq_num": "(5)"
}
],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "The third layer applies graph convolution (GCN) to the subject hidden states from BiLSTM and subject and anchor nodes, where the subject node is the hidden state from the BiLSTM and the anchor node is the anchor embedding h A . Given a node i, we first compute its GCN node embedding h k+1",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "S i from its neighbor N (i), including a self loop, i \u2208 N (i): h k+1 S i = ReLu( j\u2208N (i) W S k h S k j + b S k )",
"eq_num": "(6)"
}
],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "where k represents the k-order neighbor (the maximum hop between two nodes). W S k and b S k are the learned weights and bias. We use k = 1, as there is only one edge between the subject and anchor, thus h k=0 S i is either the anchor embedding h A or the BiLSTM output for the subject word. The node representation is thus more informative by merging with its relevant neighbor through graph convolution, and enhances the final aggregation. Once the GCN node features are obtained, we compute the final embedding h K S as the average over all node features N k at the last layer K,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "h K S = 1 |N K | v\u2208N K h K v , h K S \u2208 R 2D",
"eq_num": "(7)"
}
],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "5 Data Collection",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "This section introduces two corpora we use in our experiments. They differ in genre, size, and distribution of connectives, as well as a contrast between spontaneous student writing and carefully edited text. They also differ in the way they were annotated, and in whether they include negative examples. DeSSE (Decomposed Sentences from Student Essays) consists of sentences from students' opinion essays, 78% of which are complex. The annotation of DeSSE rewrites complex sentences into atomic tensed clauses, omitting any discourse connectives. Sentences are considered complex if there are at least two clauses with tensed verbs, thus a sentence consisting of a subject, verb and its clausal argument are not considered complex. The corpus also includes complex sentences with relative clauses rather than connectives, which serve as negative examples for connective prediction. We assume that a model should be able to discriminate between cases where two clauses have a cohesive relation other than one given by a connective. This is analogous to the motivation for inclusion of adversarial examples in a recent corpus for natural language arguments (Niven and Kao, 2019) . In that work, it was shown that transformer models that appeared to perform well without the adversarial examples were exploiting accidental correlations, given that performance degraded significantly once adversarial examples were included. Previous work has shown similar results that neural models for summarization learn more about the position of lead sentences in news articles than about the actual meanings of sentences, due to the lead bias in news (Kedzie et al., 2018) . DeSSE consists of 39K source sentences, with 68 connectives of the 141 connective words and phrases identified in PDTB. Most connectives occur with very low frequency. More than 50% of pairs are connected by and, punctuation, or no connective. Fifty-five of the 68 connectives are rare with frequencies below 1% of the total. A detailed distribution is shown in appendix A. 1 Our second corpus is a modification of the Book corpus, which consists of connective prediction data taken from published novels (Nie et al., 2019) . The Book corpus extracts pairs of simple or complex sentences from source texts, where a connective linked the pair. The original Book corpus contains 15 connectives, and two subsets of 8 and 5 connectives. We created subsets consisting of connectives that joined simple clauses: Book-Simpl 5 with their 5 connectives (285K clause pairs), and Book-Simpl 8 with their 8 (359K clause pairs). Table 1 shows that the average clause length for DeSSE is longer than in Book-Simpl, with one-fifth the total vocabulary. In comparison to Book-Simpl, the language in DeSSE is less formal and coherent.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1156,
"end": 1177,
"text": "(Niven and Kao, 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 1638,
"end": 1659,
"text": "(Kedzie et al., 2018)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 2036,
"end": 2037,
"text": "1",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 2167,
"end": 2185,
"text": "(Nie et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 2578,
"end": 2585,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural architecture",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "DeSSE includes identification of complex sentences with tensed clauses, and excludes infinitival or gerundive clauses, as a first step towards training corpora for clause identification. It covers a wide range of intra-sentential syntactic and semantic phenomena. It includes all tensed clauses occurring in conjoined structures, including subordinating conjunctions, along with relative clauses, parentheticals, and conjoined verb phrases. It excludes clausal arguments of verbs, because the semantic relationship of the clausal argument in its sentence is given by the verb semantics. The annotation process is unique in that it involves identifying where to split the source sentence into distinct clauses, and how to rephrase the source sentence into a set of complete, independent clauses that omit any discourse connectives. It is designed for developing connective prediction, sentence segmentation and decomposition, and semantic representation. Figure 4 illustrates intra-sentential connectives (then, but) that join two clauses. In example 1), the first clause (in parentheses) contains a free relative clause as a verb argument (in italics). In example 2), the first clause contains a clausal argument of the main verb. In both cases, however, the entire first clause is the first argument of the connective. 2 We collected over 17,000 opinion essays written by U.S. university students in a large undergraduate social science class. Students watched video clips about race relations, and wrote essays in a blog environment to share their opinions with the class. We selected 39K sentences out of 173K for annotation, corresponding to the first 3,592 essays.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1320,
"end": 1321,
"text": "2",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 954,
"end": 962,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DeSSE",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) is a popular crowdsourcing platform for NLP annotation. While it facilitates data collection, using untrained annotators requires care. In a series of pilot tasks on AMT, we iteratively designed annotation instructions and an annotation interface, while monitoring quality. Figure 5 illustrates two steps in the annotation: identification of n split points between tensed clauses, and rephrasing the source into n+1 simple clauses, where any connectives are dropped. The final version of the instructions describes the two annotation steps, provides a list of connectives, and illustrates a positive and negative example. 3 The ten most frequent connectives in DeSSE are and, because, when, as, so, or, for, if, also, but. We postprocess the corpus to identify pairs of clauses from complex sentences, and any connectives. The resulting dataset has the following distribution: a single atomic clause (22%), two clauses (45%) or more than two clauses (33%). Given sentences with exactly two atomic clauses in the source, 30% joined them with a discourse connective.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 651,
"end": 652,
"text": "3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 303,
"end": 311,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DeSSE",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "Nie et al. (2019) presented the Book corpus, which has 15 frequently used connectives and 4.7M pairs of sentences. Their goal was to exploit the semantic relationship given by the connective prediction task to improve sentence representation, as noted above. The Book corpus contains two versions, Book-5 with 5 connectives: and, but, if, because, when; and Book-8, an extended version with 3 more connectives: before, though, so. The sentences linked by a connective can be simple or complex.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Book-Simpl",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "To create a subset of the Book corpus that is more parallel to DeSSE, we selected Book corpus examples where the connective linked two simple clauses. The new Book-Simpl dataset has a distribution of connectives similar to the Book corpus (see appendix A).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Book-Simpl",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "For our experiments to predict connectives, we use the same classifier used in (Nie et al., 2019) . An input pair of sentence vectors representing the clauses to be joined by a connective are concatenated with vectors resulting from three pairwise vector operations: averaging, subtraction and multiplication. The concatenated vectors are fed into three fully-connected layers, then projected to a lower dimension prior to softmax over the classification categories.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 97,
"text": "(Nie et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Experiments on Book-Simpl predict the correct connective, given positive examples of clause pairs. Experiments on DeSSE predict the correct connective, given positive and negative examples. We compare DAnCE with four baselines on both datasets, reporting accuracy and F1. Student writing is much less coherent than much of the text that applies NLP to tasks related to discourse structure, N=3,466) and DeSSE (N=3, 894) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 390,
"end": 398,
"text": "N=3,466)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 403,
"end": 414,
"text": "DeSSE (N=3,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 415,
"end": 419,
"text": "894)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "such as discourse connective prediction, discourse parsing, and semantic representation of clauses. We find all models perform better on Book-Simpl than DeSSE, and DAnCE-FA yields good performance on both corpora.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "We use three kinds of architecture as baselines: Bag-of-words feed-forward networks (BoW), Treebased LSTM (Tree-LSTM), and sequential LSTM (Seq-LSTM). For BoW group, we include Glove-CNN (Kim, 2014) , a widely used convolutional network for text classification that takes word vectors as input and generates sentence vectors. The Tree-LSTM group includes two models: Dependency Tree-LSTM (Tree) (Tai et al., 2015) , which encodes the dependency parse, and an improved version of Tree-LSTM with attention (Tr-Attn) (Ahmed et al., 2019) . The Seq-LSTM group consists of DisSent (Nie et al., 2019; Conneau et al., 2017 ), a BiLSTM model with max-pooling over all hidden units of sentences, and self attention. Hyperparameters are shown in Appendix D. Our experiments ask two questions: 1) How does DAnCE, which relies on graph convolution, and whose input is a Dependency-Anchor graph, compare with tree-based models? 2) How does DAnCE compare against the two types of models that do not rely on syntax (sequence-based and BOW). The two anchor settings for DAnCE enable us also to test alternative DAnCE settings (DAnCE-FA and DAnCE-GA). Our question here is whether learning from dependency relations within verb phrases through graph attention produces better representations for connective prediction. 4 Table 2 reports mean accuracy and the standard deviation from 16 bootstrapped iterations on 90% of the test data, and F1 for the full test data. Bootstrapped F1 standard deviation shows the same magnitude as accuracy therefore is omitted from the table. Overall, all models report higher accuracy and F1 on Book-Simpl than DeSSE, which suggests that including \"no connectives\" increases the difficulty of the learning task. For Book-Simpl, increasing the number of connectives also increases the prediction difficulty, reflected in lower accuracy and F1 scores for all models on Book-Simpl 8 in comparison to Book-Simpl 5. DAnCE outperforms all baselines, DisSent falls between the two tree variants, and the BoW model has the lowest performance. On DeSSE 5 and 8, however, it is the BoW model that shows the highest accuracy. DisSent achieves the highest F1 on both versions of DeSSE. DAnCE-FA has higher accuracy but slightly lower F1 than DisSent, and both greatly outperform the two tree models and DAnCE-GA.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 187,
"end": 198,
"text": "(Kim, 2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 413,
"text": "(Tai et al., 2015)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 514,
"end": 534,
"text": "(Ahmed et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 576,
"end": 594,
"text": "(Nie et al., 2019;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 595,
"end": 615,
"text": "Conneau et al., 2017",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1304,
"end": 1311,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Baselines and settings",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "Recall that DeSSE includes adversarial samples, hence evaluation on DeSSE may be more revealing in comparison to Book-Simpl. Figure 6 gives a breakdown of F1 by connective on DeSSE 5 and 8 for DAnCE-FA, DisSent and Tree-Attn. It is surprising that for DeSSE 5, Tree-Attn fails completely on and, so, as, while it outperforms DisSent and DAnCE-FA on because, no connective. On DeSSE 8, Tree-Attn fails to predict and, for, if. DAnCE-FA and DisSent have similar F1 scores Table 3 : Ablation studies of DAnCE.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 133,
"text": "Figure 6",
"ref_id": "FIGREF4"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 477,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "Pairs (Obs, Pred) Pairs (and, but) 24.0% (and, but) 18.0% (and, and) 17.0% (and, and) 12.0% (because, but) 7.8% (None, but) 7.3% (None, but)",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 34,
"text": "(and, but)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"text": "(and, but)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"text": "(and, and)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"text": "(and, and)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DeSSE 5 DeSSE 8 (Obs, Pred)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "6.8% (because, but) 5.6% (so, but) 4.1% (and, when) 4.8% on and, when, if, but DAnCE-FA rarely or never predicts the connectives so, for and as. It may be that subtle differences in meaning based on sentence elements apart from the subject and verb phrase are predictive, given the failure of DAnCE-FA to perform at all well on these connectives. To summarize, DAnCE-FA performs comparably to DisSent and shows improvements over tree-based models. DAnCE-GA is worse than DAnCE-FA, which might be attributed to the noisy information introduced by dependency arcs within the anchor.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "DeSSE 5 DeSSE 8 (Obs, Pred)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We conducted an ablation test on DAnCE-GA to address the following questions: 1) does the performance drop if subject and verb are not highlighted? and 2) do undirected dependency arcs result in better performance within the anchor. To address the first question, we remove the GCN layer (-GCN). To address the second, we remove the directionality of dependency arcs inside the anchor to produce a symmetric adjacency matrix (-DIR). Table 3 presents F1 scores on the for sets of connectives from Book-Simpl and DeSSE. Compared to the DAnCE variants presented in Table 2 , removing the emphasis on subject and verb significantly lowers the performance, especially on DeSSE. Using a symmetric adjacency matrix for graph attention results in lower performance on Book-Simpl, but surprisingly higher F1 on DeSSE. This shows that our emphasis on the subject and verb phrase enhances clause representation. However, incorporating more dependency arcs within the anchor degrades the performance. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 433,
"end": 440,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 562,
"end": 569,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Ablation Experiment",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "Here we discuss the potential to suggest an alternative connective for students when their choice of connective differs from a connective predicted by a model that has been trained on professionally written text. The benefits of this analysis are two-fold: it explores the feasibility of an education application to help students revise their choice of connective, and it allows us to examine DAnCE's ability to model aspects of coherence that pertain to choice of connective. For all pairs of sentences in DeSSE 5 and 8, we compared the observed choice made by the student writer with the prediction from DAnCE-FA trained on Book Simpl 5 or Book Simpl 8. Table 4 shows the five most frequent pairs of student choice in DeSSE 5 or DeSSE 8 versus the prediction from the model trained on Book Simpl 5 (left columns) or trained on Book Simpl 8 (right columns). As illustrated, in many of the cases where students used and, the model trained on text from professional writers predicts but. Figure 5 shows a few examples where a student used the semantically neutral conjunction and, the model predicted a more specific conjunction, and the model's prediction seems more precise. Future work will investigate in detail the feasibility of suggesting alternative connectives.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 656,
"end": 663,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
},
{
"start": 987,
"end": 995,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "This paper presented the dependency-anchor graph, a new data structure emphasizing the propositional structure of clauses, and DAnCE, a neural architecture with a distinct module for learning verb phrase representation, and graph convolution for semantic relation between the verb phrase and its subject.DAnCE shows good performance on two datasets for connective prediction, and introduces a potential application that could help students revise their writing through improved choice of connectives. Future work will extend DAnCE for coherence modeling within and across sentences, and for applications to support students' revisions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "A Connective distributions in Book-Simpl and DeSSE The instruction illustrate the two phases of annotation. The annotator first chooses whether to add one or more split points to an input sentence, where the word after a split point represents the first word of a new segment. Once an annotator has identified the split points, which happens on the first page of the AMT interface, shown as Figure 9 , a second view of the interface appears. Figure 10 shows the second view when annotators rewrite the segments. Every span of words defined by split points (or the original sentence if no split points), appears in its own text entry box for the annotator to rewrite. Annotators cannot submit if they remove all the words from a text entry box. They are instructed to rewrite each text span as a complete sentence, and to leave out the discourse connectives. Several auto-checking and warnings are applied in the interface to reassure the quality. If a rewrite contains a discourse connective, a warning box pops up asking if they should drop the discourse connective before submitting it. A warning box will show up if annotators use vocabulary outside the original sentence. To prevent annotators from failing to rewrite, we monitored the output, checking for cases where they submitted the text spans with no rewriting. Annotators are prohibited to submit if the interface detects an empty rewrite box or",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 391,
"end": 399,
"text": "Figure 9",
"ref_id": "FIGREF7"
},
{
"start": 442,
"end": 451,
"text": "Figure 10",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "Size and but because if when before though so Book 5 3054K 31 32 15 5 16 na na na Book-Simpl 5 285k 33 28 8 5 27 na na na Book 8 3435K 28 28 5 13 14 6 3 2 Book-Simpl 8 359K 29 24 4 7 23 8 3 1 Table 6 : Number of sentence pairs (Size), and the distribution of connectives (as percentages) for the original Book corpus and our modified version.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 235,
"text": "Book 5 3054K 31 32 15 5 16 na na na Book-Simpl 5 285k 33 28 8 5 27 na na na Book 8 3435K 28 28 5 13 14 6 3 2 Book-Simpl 8 359K 29 24 4 7 23 8 3 1 Table 6",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Corpus",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "the total lengths of the rewrites are too short compared to the source sentence. We warned annotators by email that if they failed to produce complete sentences in the rewrite boxes, they would be blocked. Some annotators were blocked, but most responded positively to the warnings.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Corpus",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To test the clarity of instruction and interface, the initial 500 sentences were used for evaluating the task quality, each labeled by three turkers (73 turkers overall), using three measures of consistency, all in [0, 1] . Average pairwise boundary similarity (Fournier, 2013) , a very conservative measure of whether annotators produce the same number of segments with boundaries at nearly the same locations, was 0.55. Percent agreement on number of output substrings was 0.80. On annotations with the same number of segments, we measured the average Jaccard score (ratio of set intersection to set union) of words in segments from different annotators, which was 0.88, and words from rephrasings, which was 0.73. With all metrics close to 1, and boundary similarity above 0.5, we concluded quality was already high. During the actual data collection, quality was higher because we monitored quality on daily basis and communicated with turkers who had questions.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 215,
"end": 218,
"text": "[0,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 221,
"text": "1]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 277,
"text": "(Fournier, 2013)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "C Quality control in DeSSE",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "All the methods take GloVe word embeddings as input. Due to the size difference between Book-Simpl and DeSSE, we use different dimensionalities for the word embeddings (w) and classifier hidden layers (h) with the two corpora on all baseline systems: for Book-Simpl, D w = 300, D h = 512; for DeSSe D w = 100, D h = 256. We train Dis-Sent using the original D h = 4096 for Book-Simpl, and reduce it to 256 for DeSSE. Apart from this one change to DisSent, we use the published settings for all baseline systems. We train DAnCE using the same vector dimensions as for DisSent. Because DAnCE has twice the number of parameters as Dis-Sent, we use the smaller classifier dimensionality of 256 on both corpora. We use SGD as optimizer for DAnCE, with the learning rate at 0.01. Learning rates between [0.1,0.001] did not show obvious performance differences, and 0.01 converged faster. We use earlystopping to prevent overfitting. We did not use dropout, due to a negative impact on performance (cf. (Nie et al., 2019) ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 996,
"end": 1014,
"text": "(Nie et al., 2019)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "D Experiment Settings",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "All training is done on 4 Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti GPUs. The longest training time is 35 hours, for DAnCE on Book-Simpl 8. During testing, we perform 16 bootstrap iterations",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "D Experiment Settings",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "DeSSE is available at https://github.com/ serenayj/DeSSE. DAnCE is available at https:// github.com/serenayj/DAnCE.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "As in(Webber and Joshi, 1998), we take connectives to be predicates whose arguments are the clauses they join.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The interface checked for connectives remaining in step two to warn annotators. Details about the interface and quality control are included in appendix B.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We attempt to train a fine-tune BERT on our dataset, however due to the size of the training set we make no success in finetuning.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "If you have not experienced what they have experienced), then you will never truly understand",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "(If you have not experienced what they have experi- enced), then you will never truly understand.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "I believe that talking about race more in a civil way can only improve our society), but I can see why other people may have a different opinion",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "(I believe that talking about race more in a civil way can only improve our society), but I can see why other people may have a different opinion.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Annotation and classification of sentence-level revision improvement",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Tazin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Afrin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Diane",
"middle": [],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Thirteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "240--246",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Tazin Afrin and Diane Litman. 2018. Annotation and classification of sentence-level revision improve- ment. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Ap- plications, pages 240-246.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Improving tree-LSTM with tree attention",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mahtab",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ahmed",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Muhammad",
"middle": [
"Rifayat"
],
"last": "Samee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Mercer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "2019 IEEE 13th International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "247--254",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mahtab Ahmed, Muhammad Rifayat Samee, and Robert E. Mercer. 2019. Improving tree-LSTM with tree attention. In 2019 IEEE 13th International Con- ference on Semantic Computing (ICSC), pages 247- 254. IEEE.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "SentEval: An evaluation toolkit for universal sentence representations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alexis",
"middle": [],
"last": "Conneau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Douwe",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kiela",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alexis Conneau and Douwe Kiela. 2018. SentEval: An evaluation toolkit for universal sentence representa- tions. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alexis",
"middle": [],
"last": "Conneau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Douwe",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kiela",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Holger",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schwenk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lo\u00efc",
"middle": [],
"last": "Barrault",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Antoine",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bordes",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "670--680",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/D17-1070"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alexis Conneau, Douwe Kiela, Holger Schwenk, Lo\u00efc Barrault, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing, pages 670-680, Copen- hagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Building contextaware clause representations for situation entity type classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Zeyu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dai",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ruihong",
"middle": [],
"last": "Huang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "3305--3315",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Zeyu Dai and Ruihong Huang. 2018. Building context- aware clause representations for situation entity type classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3305-3315.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Evaluating text segmentation using boundary edit distance",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Chris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fournier",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2013,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1702--1712",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chris Fournier. 2013. Evaluating text segmentation us- ing boundary edit distance. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1702-1712.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Long short-term memory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sepp",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hochreiter",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J\u00fcrgen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schmidhuber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Neural computation",
"volume": "9",
"issue": "8",
"pages": "1735--1780",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sepp Hochreiter and J\u00fcrgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735-1780.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Representation learning for text-level discourse parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yangfeng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ji",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jacob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eisenstein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "13--24",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.3115/v1/P14-1002"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yangfeng Ji and Jacob Eisenstein. 2014. Representa- tion learning for text-level discourse parsing. In Pro- ceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 13-24, Baltimore, Maryland. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "One vector is not enough: Entity-augmented distributed semantics for discourse relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yangfeng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ji",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jacob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eisenstein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "",
"pages": "329--344",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yangfeng Ji and Jacob Eisenstein. 2015. One vector is not enough: Entity-augmented distributed semantics for discourse relations. Transactions of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics, 3:329-344.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Machine-aided annotation for finegrained proposition types in argumentation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yohan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Elijah",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mayfield",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reed",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eduard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hovy",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2020,
"venue": "Proceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1008--1018",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yohan Jo, Elijah Mayfield, Chris Reed, and Eduard Hovy. 2020. Machine-aided annotation for fine- grained proposition types in argumentation. In Pro- ceedings of The 12th Language Resources and Eval- uation Conference, pages 1008-1018.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Content selection in deep learning models of summarization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Chris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kedzie",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kathleen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Daum\u00e9",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Iii",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1818--1828",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/D18-1208"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chris Kedzie, Kathleen McKeown, and Hal Daum\u00e9 III. 2018. Content selection in deep learning models of summarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1818-1828, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yoon",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kim",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1746--1751",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing (EMNLP), pages 1746-1751.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Semisupervised classification with graph convolutional networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Thomas",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Max",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kipf",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Welling",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semi- supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Tracing the development of argumentive writing in a discourse-rich context",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Deanna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kuhn",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Laura",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hemberger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Valerie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Khait",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Written Communication",
"volume": "33",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "92--121",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Deanna Kuhn, Laura Hemberger, and Valerie Khait. 2016. Tracing the development of argumentive writ- ing in a discourse-rich context. Written Communica- tion, 33(1):92-121.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "An empirical study of span representations in argumentation structure parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Tatsuki",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kuribayashi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hiroki",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ouchi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Naoya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Inoue",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Paul",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reisert",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Toshinori",
"middle": [],
"last": "Miyoshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4691--4698",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Hiroki Ouchi, Naoya Inoue, Paul Reisert, Toshinori Miyoshi, Jun Suzuki, and Kentaro Inui. 2019. An empirical study of span representa- tions in argumentation structure parsing. In Proceed- ings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4691-4698.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Multi-relational script learning for discourse relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "I-Ta",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goldwasser",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4214--4226",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/P19-1413"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "I-Ta Lee and Dan Goldwasser. 2019. Multi-relational script learning for discourse relations. In Proceed- ings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4214-4226, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "SegBot: a generic neural text segmentation model with pointer network",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jing",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aixin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sun",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shafiq",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joty",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4166--4172",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jing Li, Aixin Sun, and Shafiq Joty. 2018. SegBot: a generic neural text segmentation model with pointer network. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 4166-4172.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "When are tree structures necessary for deep learning of representations?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jiwei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Minh-Thang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Luong",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eduard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hovy",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "2304--2314",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jiwei Li, Minh-Thang Luong, Dan Jurafsky, and Ed- uard Hovy. 2015. When are tree structures necessary for deep learning of representations? In Proceed- ings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2304-2314.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Automatic prediction of discourse connectives",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Eric",
"middle": [],
"last": "Malmi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Daniele",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pighin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sebastian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krause",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mikhail",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kozhevnikov",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eric Malmi, Daniele Pighin, Sebastian Krause, and Mikhail Kozhevnikov. 2018. Automatic prediction of discourse connectives. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Re- sources and Evaluation (LREC 2018).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Encoding sentences with graph convolutional networks for semantic role labeling",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Diego",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marcheggiani",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ivan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Titov",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1506--1515",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Diego Marcheggiani and Ivan Titov. 2017. Encoding sentences with graph convolutional networks for se- mantic role labeling. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing (EMNLP), pages 1506-1515.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "The impact of connectives on the memory for expository texts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Keith",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Millis",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Arthur",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Karl",
"middle": [],
"last": "Graesser",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Haberlandt",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Applied Cognitive Psychology",
"volume": "7",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "317--339",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Keith K Millis, Arthur C Graesser, and Karl Haberlandt. 1993. The impact of connectives on the memory for expository texts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7(4):317-339.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Split and rephrase",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Shashi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Narayan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gardent",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shay",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cohen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Anastasia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shimorina",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "EMNLP 2017: Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "617--627",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Shashi Narayan, Claire Gardent, Shay Cohen, and Anastasia Shimorina. 2017. Split and rephrase. In EMNLP 2017: Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 617-627.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Instant feedback for increasing the presence of solutions in peer reviews",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Huy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nguyen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Wenting",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xiong",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Diane",
"middle": [],
"last": "Litman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "6--10",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Huy Nguyen, Wenting Xiong, and Diane Litman. 2016. Instant feedback for increasing the presence of solu- tions in peer reviews. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demon- strations, pages 6-10.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "DisSent: Learning sentence representations from explicit discourse relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Allen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nie",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Erin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bennett",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Noah",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goodman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4497--4510",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Allen Nie, Erin Bennett, and Noah Goodman. 2019. DisSent: Learning sentence representations from ex- plicit discourse relations. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, pages 4497-4510.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Probing neural network comprehension of natural language arguments",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Timothy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niven",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hung-Yu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kao",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2019,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4658--4664",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Timothy Niven and Hung-Yu Kao. 2019. Probing neu- ral network comprehension of natural language ar- guments. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4658-4664.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Identifying appropriate support for propositions in online user comments",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joonsuk",
"middle": [],
"last": "Park",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cardie",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proceedings of the first workshop on argumentation mining",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "29--38",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joonsuk Park and Claire Cardie. 2014. Identifying appropriate support for propositions in online user comments. In Proceedings of the first workshop on argumentation mining, pages 29-38.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Glove: Global vectors for word representation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jeffrey",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pennington",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Socher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2014 conference on 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 Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language process- ing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Assessing text-based writing of low-skilled college students",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dolores",
"middle": [],
"last": "Perin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lauterbach",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education",
"volume": "28",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "56--78",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dolores Perin and Mark Lauterbach. 2018. Assessing text-based writing of low-skilled college students. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Ed- ucation, 28(1):56-78.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Ran Zhang, and Afsaneh Fazly. 2020. How coherent are neural models of coherence?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Leila",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pishdad",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Federico",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fancellu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "6126--6138",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Leila Pishdad, Federico Fancellu, Ran Zhang, and Af- saneh Fazly. 2020. How coherent are neural mod- els of coherence? In Proceedings of the 28th Inter- national Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6126-6138.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"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": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Aravind",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Milt- sakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind K Joshi, and Bon- nie L Webber. 2008. The penn discourse treebank 2.0. In LREC. Citeseer.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "A systematic study of neural discourse models for implicit discourse relation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Attapol",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rutherford",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Vera",
"middle": [],
"last": "Demberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nianwen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xue",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "281--291",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Attapol Rutherford, Vera Demberg, and Nianwen Xue. 2017. A systematic study of neural discourse mod- els for implicit discourse relation. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 281-291.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF33": {
"ref_id": "b33",
"title": "Improving the inference of implicit discourse relations via classifying explicit discourse connectives",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Attapol",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rutherford",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nianwen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xue",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "799--808",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Attapol Rutherford and Nianwen Xue. 2015. Improv- ing the inference of implicit discourse relations via classifying explicit discourse connectives. In Pro- ceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 799-808.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF34": {
"ref_id": "b34",
"title": "Enhanced English universal dependencies: An improved representation for natural language understanding tasks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sebastian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schuster",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Christopher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "2371--2378",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sebastian Schuster and Christopher D Manning. 2016. Enhanced English universal dependencies: An im- proved representation for natural language under- standing tasks. In Proceedings of the Tenth Interna- tional Conference on Language Resources and Eval- uation (LREC'16), pages 2371-2378.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF35": {
"ref_id": "b35",
"title": "Mining discourse markers for unsupervised sentence representation learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Damien",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sileo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van De Cruys",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Camille",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pradel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Philippe",
"middle": [],
"last": "Muller",
"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": "3477--3486",
"other_ids": {
"DOI": [
"10.18653/v1/N19-1351"
]
},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Damien Sileo, Tim Van De Cruys, Camille Pradel, and Philippe Muller. 2019. Mining discourse mark- ers for unsupervised sentence representation learn- ing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3477-3486, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF36": {
"ref_id": "b36",
"title": "Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kai Sheng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tai",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Socher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "1",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1556--1566",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kai Sheng Tai, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. 2015. Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory net- works. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natu- ral Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1556-1566.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF37": {
"ref_id": "b37",
"title": "An introduction to syntax",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Robert",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Valin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Robert D. Van Valin. 2001. An introduction to syntax. Cambridge University Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF38": {
"ref_id": "b38",
"title": "Graph attention networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Petar",
"middle": [],
"last": "Velickovi\u0107",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Guillem",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cucurull",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Arantxa",
"middle": [],
"last": "Casanova",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Adriana",
"middle": [],
"last": "Romero",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Pietro",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li\u00f3",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yoshua",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bengio",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Sixth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Petar Velickovi\u0107, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Li\u00f3, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph attention networks. In Sixth Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF39": {
"ref_id": "b39",
"title": "A two-stage parsing method for text-level discourse analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yizhong",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sujian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Houfeng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2017,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "",
"pages": "184--188",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yizhong Wang, Sujian Li, and Houfeng Wang. 2017. A two-stage parsing method for text-level discourse analysis. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 184-188.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF40": {
"ref_id": "b40",
"title": "Toward fast and accurate neural discourse segmentation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yizhong",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sujian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jingfeng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "962--967",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yizhong Wang, Sujian Li, and Jingfeng Yang. 2018. Toward fast and accurate neural discourse segmen- tation. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 962-967.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF41": {
"ref_id": "b41",
"title": "Anchoring a lexicalized tree adjoining grammar for discourse",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bonnie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Webber",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Aravind",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joshi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "ACL/COLING Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "86--92",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bonnie Webber and Aravind Joshi. 1998. Anchoring a lexicalized tree adjoining grammar for discourse. In ACL/COLING Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers, pages 86-92.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF42": {
"ref_id": "b42",
"title": "Aligning packed dependency trees: a theory of composition for distributional semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Julie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weeds",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jeremy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reffin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Thomas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kober",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "42",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "727--761",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David Weir, Julie Weeds, Jeremy Reffin, and Thomas Kober. 2016. Aligning packed dependency trees: a theory of composition for distributional semantics. Computational Linguistics, 42(4):727-761.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF43": {
"ref_id": "b43",
"title": "Lexicosyntactic inference in neural models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Aaron",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steven White",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rachel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rudinger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kyle",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rawlins",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Benjamin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Durme",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2018,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "4717--4724",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aaron Steven White, Rachel Rudinger, Kyle Rawlins, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Lexicosyntactic inference in neural models. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4717-4724.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF44": {
"ref_id": "b44",
"title": "Opinion holder and target extraction for verb-based opinion predicates-the problem is not solved",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiegand",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marc",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schulder",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Josef",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ruppenhofer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "148--155",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Michael Wiegand, Marc Schulder, and Josef Ruppen- hofer. 2015. Opinion holder and target extraction for verb-based opinion predicates-the problem is not solved. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sen- timent and Social Media Analysis, pages 148-155.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF45": {
"ref_id": "b45",
"title": "Classifying relations via long short term memory networks along shortest dependency paths",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lili",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mou",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ge",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yunchuan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hao",
"middle": [],
"last": "Peng",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Zhi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1785--1794",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yan Xu, Lili Mou, Ge Li, Yunchuan Chen, Hao Peng, and Zhi Jin. 2015. Classifying relations via long short term memory networks along shortest depen- dency paths. In Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language process- ing, pages 1785-1794.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"text": "A dependency-anchor graph for a clause (top right)",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"text": "Overall architecture of DAnCE.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"text": "Original sentences from DeSSE with intrasentential connectives, where the clause preceding the connective contains a relative clause (example 1), or a clausal argument of the main verb (example 2).",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"num": null,
"text": "Example annotation from DeSSE. Annotators first split a sentence into segments (underlined text), then rewrite the segments into complete sentences, omitting connectives.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"num": null,
"text": "Breakdown of F1 scores on DeSSE 5 (top) and DeSSE 8 (bottom) from DAnCE-FA, DisSent and Tree-Attn.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF5": {
"num": null,
"text": "Connective distributions in DeSSE with threshold 1%Here we present a detailed statistics of connective distributions on DeSSE and Book-Simpl.Figure 7 presents the connectives from DeSSE with distribution above 1%. Among 68 connectives, there are thirteen connectives above the threshold and the rest are low frequency connectives. Table 6 shows the Book-Simpl connective distribution compared to Book corpus. As illustrated, the Book-Simpl shares the same distribution as Book corpus on both Book-Simpl 5 and 8.B Annotation instruction in DeSSEHere we present the instructions for annotators, as shown byFigure 8.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF6": {
"num": null,
"text": "Instruction for DeSSE annotation",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF7": {
"num": null,
"text": "Interface of splitting the sentence Figure 10: Interface of rewriting the segments from Figure 9 into complete sentences",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table/>",
"text": "Descriptive statistics comparing Book-Simpl and DeSSE, including the number of clause pairs (Size), average clause length, and vocabulary size."
},
"TABREF2": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Group</td><td>Model</td><td>Book-Simpl 5</td><td/><td>Book-Simpl 8</td><td/><td>DeSSE 5</td><td/><td>DeSSE 8</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>Acc. (\u03c3)</td><td>F1</td><td>Acc. (\u03c3)</td><td>F1</td><td>Acc. (\u03c3)</td><td>F1</td><td>Acc. (\u03c3)</td><td>F1</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"7\">BoW 61.89 (1Tree CNN Tree 67.95 (1.10) 59.67 59.69 (1.58) 45.71 20.35 (0.74)</td><td colspan=\"2\">9.84 16.63 (0.77)</td><td>9.29</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"9\">LSTM 69.08 (0Models Tr-Attn GA 71.51 (1.45) 59.93 65.38 (1.57) 50.28 53.48 (0.46) 14.73 12.01 (0.48)</td><td>9.16</td></tr></table>",
"text": ".64) 49.70 46.31 (1.36) 30.62 53.57 (0.27) 17.70 42.95 (0.22) 9.18 SeqLSTM DisSent 68.58 (1.55) 58.78 62.92 (1.39) 48.11 48.93 (0.31) 25.27 39.86 (0.30) 15.91 .82) 62.30 63.48 (1.40) 49.06 18.51 (0.10) 8.68 17.95 (0.72) 12.01 DAnCE FA 71.83 (0.45) 63.59 65.60 (0.55) 51.26 52.64 (0.38) 22.29 41.75 (0.25) 13.88"
},
"TABREF3": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Performance of baselines and our models on Book-Simpl 5 (N=16,538), Book-Simpl 8 (N=18,946), DeSSE 5 (</td></tr></table>",
"text": ""
},
"TABREF5": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>compare the observed student's usage (Obs) with the model</td></tr><tr><td>prediction (Pred) from DAnCE-FA trained on Book Simpl, and</td></tr><tr><td>sorted each pattern of observation and prediction by frequency.</td></tr><tr><td>The five most frequent of these patterns are shown here for</td></tr><tr><td>DeSSE 5 and DeSSE 8.</td></tr></table>",
"text": "For all pairs of sentences in the DeSSE test sets, we"
},
"TABREF6": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Student</td><td>and</td><td>DAnCE-FA because</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Clause.1 He said he grew up as a Christian. Clause.2 He then converted to Islam. Student and DAnCE-FA but Clause.1 He trusted his faith. Clause.2 It helped him move on."
},
"TABREF7": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table/>",
"text": "Example pairs of clauses from DeSSE 5, showing the connective used by the student alongside the prediction from DAnCE-FA trained on Book Simpl 5."
}
}
}
} |