Advertisement

Focus-sensitive relation disambiguation for implicit discourse relation detection

  • Yu Hong
  • Siyuan Ding
  • Yang Xu
  • Xiaoxia Jiang
  • Yu Wang
  • Jianmin Yao
  • Qiaoming Zhu
  • Guodong Zhou
Research Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

We study implicit discourse relation detection, which is one of the most challenging tasks in the field of discourse analysis. We specialize in ambiguous implicit discourse relation, which is an imperceptible linguistic phenomenon and therefore difficult to identify and eliminate. In this paper, we first create a novel task named implicit discourse relation disambiguation (IDRD). Second, we propose a focus-sensitive relation disambiguation model that affirms a truly-correct relation when it is triggered by focal sentence constituents. In addition, we specifically develop a topic-driven focus identification method and a relation search system (RSS) to support the relation disambiguation. Finally, we improve current relation detection systems by using the disambiguation model. Experiments on the penn discourse treebank (PDTB) show promising improvements.

Keywords

Implicit discourse relation focus-sensitive implicit relation disambiguation topic-driven focus identification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61672368, 61373097, 61672367, 61331011), the Research Foundation of the Ministry of Education and China Mobile (MCM20150602) and Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu (BK20151222). The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

11704_2017_6558_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (950 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 950 KB.

References

  1. 1.
    Prasad R, Dinesh N, Lee A, Miltsakaki E, Robaldo L, Joshi A, Webber B. The penn discourse treebank 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 2008Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang W T, Su J, Tan C L. Kernel based discourse relation recognition with temporal ordering information. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2010, 710–719Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pitler E, Nenkova A. Using syntax to disambiguate explicit discourse connective in text. In: Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers. Association for Computational Linguistics. 2009, 13–16Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miltsakaki E, Dinesh N, Prasad R, Joshi A, Webber B. Experiments on sense annotations and sense disambiguation of discourse connectives. In: Proceedings of the 4thWorkshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories. 2005, 1–12Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pitler E, Louis A, Nenkova A. Automatic sense prediction for implicit discourse relations in text. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation. 2009, 683–691Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pitler E, Raghupathy M, Nenkova H M, Lee A, Joshi A. Easily identifiable discourse relations. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 2008, 87–90Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin Z H, Kan M Y, Ng H T. Recognizing implicit discourse relations in the penn discourse treebank. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2009, 343–351Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biran O, McKeown K. Aggregated word pair features for implicit discourse relation disambiguation. In: Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2013, 69–73Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park J, Cardie C. Improving implicit discourse relation recognition through feature set optimization. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. 2012, 108–112Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lan M, Xu Y, Niu Z Y. Leveraging synthetic discourse data via multitask learning for implicit discourse relation recognition. In: Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2013, 476–485Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marcu D, Echihabi A. An unsupervised approach to recognizing discourse relations. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2002, 368–375Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saito M, Yamamoto K, Sekine S. Using phrasal patterns to identify discourse relations. In: Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2006, 133–136Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhou M Z, Xu Y, Niu Y Z, Lan M, Su J, Tan C L. Predicting discourse connectives for implicit discourse relation recognition. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 2010, 1507–1514Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hong Y, Zhou X P, Che T T, Yao J M, Zhu Q M, Zhou G D. Crossargument inference for implicit discourse relation recognition. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 2012, 295–304Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ji Y F, Eisenstein J. One vector is not enough: entity-augmented distributed semantics for discourse relations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2015, 3: 329–344Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang B, Su J S, Xiong D Y, Lu Y J, Duan H, Yao J F. Shallow convolutional neural network for implicit discourse relation recognition. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2015, 2230–2235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen J F, Zhang Q, Liu P F, Huang X J. Discourse relations detection via a mixed generative-discriminative framework. In: Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2016, 2921–2927Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu Y, Li S J, Zhang X D, Sui Z F. Implicit discourse relation classification via multi-task neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2016, 2750–2756Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen J F, Zhang Q, Liu P F, Qiu X P, Huang X J. Implicit discourse relation detection via a deep architecture with gated relevance network. In: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2016, 1726–1735Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory. 1973, 267–281Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lambrecht K. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Toplic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse References. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, 206–219Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matsuo Y, Ishizuka M. Keyword extraction from a single document using word co-occurrence statistical information. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools, 2004, 13(1): 157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Church K W, Hanks P. Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 1990, 76–83Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Napoles C, Gormley M, Durme B V. Annotated gigaword. In: Proceedings of the Joint Workshop on Automatic Knowledge Base Construction & Web-scale Knowledge Extraction of NAACL-HLT. 2012, 95–100Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Coifman R R, Wicherhauser M V. Entropy-based algorithms for best basis selection. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 1992, 38(2): 713–718CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vapnik V N. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer Science & Business Media, 1995CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wolf F, Gibson E. Representing discourse coherence: a corpus-based analysis. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 2005, 134–140Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miltsakaki E, Robaldo L, Lee A, Joshi A. Sense annotation in the penn discourse treebank. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics. 2008, 275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu Hong
    • 1
  • Siyuan Ding
    • 1
  • Yang Xu
    • 1
  • Xiaoxia Jiang
    • 2
  • Yu Wang
    • 2
  • Jianmin Yao
    • 1
  • Qiaoming Zhu
    • 1
  • Guodong Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.Natural Language Processing Lab, School of Computer Science & TechnologySoochow UniversitySuzhouChina
  2. 2.Science and Technology on Information Systems Engineering LaboratoryNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations