Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition by Selecting Typical Training Examples

Implicit discourse relation recognition is a challenging task in the natural language processing field, but important to many applications such as question answering, summarizat ion and so on. Previous research used either art ificially created implicit discourse relat ions with connectives removed from explicit relations or annotated implicit relat ions as training data to detect the possible implicit relations, and do not further discern which examples are fit to be training data. This paper is the first time to apply a d ifferent typical/atypical perspective to select the most suitable discourse relation examples as training data. To differentiate typical and atypical examples for each discourse relation, a novel single centroid clustering algorithm is proposed. With this typical/atypical distinction, we aim to recognize those easily identified discourse relations more precisely so as to promote the performance of the implicit relation recognition. The experimental results verify that the proposed new method outperforms the state -of-the-art methods.

[1]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  An Unsupervised Approach to Recognizing Discourse Relations , 2002, ACL.

[2]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  Building a Discourse-Tagged Corpus in the Framework of Rhetorical Structure Theory , 2001, SIGDIAL Workshop.

[3]  Sasha J. Blair-Goldensohn,et al.  Long-answer question answering and rhetorical-semantic relations , 2007 .

[4]  Mitsuru Ishizuka,et al.  HILDA: A Discourse Parser Using Support Vector Machine Classification , 2010, Dialogue Discourse.

[5]  Jian Su,et al.  The Effects of Discourse Connectives Prediction on Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition , 2010, SIGDIAL Conference.

[6]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Edinburgh Research Explorer Using automatically labelled examples to classify rhetorical relations: an assessment , 2022 .

[7]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  Classification of Discourse Coherence Relations: An Exploratory Study using Multiple Knowledge Sources , 2006, SIGDIAL Workshop.

[8]  Satoshi Sekine,et al.  Using Phrasal Patterns to Identify Discourse Relations , 2006, HLT-NAACL.

[9]  Hwee Tou Ng,et al.  Recognizing Implicit Discourse Relations in the Penn Discourse Treebank , 2009, EMNLP.

[10]  Ani Nenkova,et al.  Automatic sense prediction for implicit discourse relations in text , 2009, ACL.

[11]  William C. Mann,et al.  Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization , 1988 .

[12]  Jian Su,et al.  Kernel Based Discourse Relation Recognition with Temporal Ordering Information , 2010, ACL.

[13]  Livio Robaldo,et al.  The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. , 2008, LREC.

[14]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  Sentence Level Discourse Parsing using Syntactic and Lexical Information , 2003, NAACL.

[15]  Etienne Barnard,et al.  Data characteristics that determine classifier performance , 2006 .

[16]  Graeme Hirst,et al.  Text-level Discourse Parsing with Rich Linguistic Features , 2012, ACL.

[17]  Janyce Wiebe,et al.  Recognizing Contextual Polarity in Phrase-Level Sentiment Analysis , 2005, HLT.

[18]  David Yarowsky,et al.  Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation Rivaling Supervised Methods , 1995, ACL.