Abstract

In implicit discourse relation classification, we want to predict the relation between adjacent sentences in the absence of any overt discourse connectives. This is challenging even for humans, leading to shortage of annotated data, a fact that makes the task even more difficult for supervised machine learning approaches. In the current study, we perform implicit discourse relation classification without relying on any labeled implicit relation. We sidestep the lack of data through explicitation of implicit relations to reduce the task to two sub-problems: language modeling and explicit discourse relation classification, a much easier problem. Our experimental results show that this method can even marginally outperform the state-of-the-art, in spite of being much simpler than alternative models of comparable performance. Moreover, we show that the achieved performance is robust across domains as suggested by the zero-shot experiments on a completely different domain. This indicates that recent advances in language modeling have made language models sufficiently good at capturing inter-sentence relations without the help of explicit discourse markers.

Highlights

  • Discourse relations describe the relationship between discourse units, e.g. clauses or sentences

  • PDTB 2.0 adopts a lexicalized approach where each relation consists of a discourse connective (e.g. “but”, “and”) which acts as a predicate taking two arguments

  • The implicit relations in the PDTB 2.0 sections 21-22 are allocated as the test set whereas the explicit relations in sections 2-20;23-24 are used as the training and 0-1 as the development set of the explicit relation classifier

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Discourse relations describe the relationship between discourse units, e.g. clauses or sentences These relations are either signalled explicitly with a discourse connective (e.g. because, and) or expressed implicitly and are inferred by sequential reading (Example 1 below). The relations in the latter category are called implicit discourse relations and they are of special significance because their lack of an explicit signal makes them challenging to annotate for even humans, suggested by the lower inter-annotator agreements on implicit relations (Zeyrek and Kurfalı, 2017; Zikanovaet al., 2019), let alone classify automatically. Previous work shows that explicit relations in English have a low level of ambiguity, so the discourse relation can be classified with more than 94% accuracy from the discourse connective alone (Pitler and Nenkova, 2009). Unlike explicit relations where there is an explicit textual cue (the connective), implicit relations can only be inferred which makes them more challenging to spot and annotate

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call