Discourse structures are beneficial for various NLP tasks such as dialogue understanding, question answering, sentiment analysis, and so on. This paper presents a deep sequential model for parsing discourse dependency structures of multi-party dialogues. The proposed model aims to construct a discourse dependency tree by predicting dependency relations and constructing the discourse structure jointly and alternately. It makes a sequential scan of the Elementary Discourse Units (EDUs) in a dialogue. For each EDU, the model decides to which previous EDU the current one should link and what the corresponding relation type is. The predicted link and relation type are then used to build the discourse structure incrementally with a structured encoder. During link prediction and relation classification, the model utilizes not only local information that represents the concerned EDUs, but also global information that encodes the EDU sequence and the discourse structure that is already built at the current step. Experiments show that the proposed model outperforms all the state-of-the-art baselines.
Most previous work for discourse parsing is based on Penn Discourse TreeBank (PDTB) @cite_12 or Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse TreeBank (RST-DT) @cite_1 . PDTB focuses on shallow discourse relations but ignores the overall discourse structure @cite_17 , while in this paper we aim to parse discourse structures. As for RST, there have been many approaches including transition-based methods @cite_21 @cite_27 @cite_6 and those involving CYK-like algorithms @cite_4 @cite_18 @cite_29 or greedy bottom-up algorithms @cite_25 . However, constituency-based RST does not allow non-adjacent relations, which makes it inapplicable for multi-party dialogues. By contrast, in this paper, we aim to parse non-projective dependency structures, where dependency relations can appear between non-adjacent EDUs.
@cite_18 @cite_4 @cite_29 @cite_21 @cite_1 @cite_6 @cite_27 @cite_25 @cite_12 @cite_17
2166957049 2461928176 2131861279 2251293245
We present the second version of the Penn Discourse Treebank, PDTB-2.0, describing its lexically-grounded annotations of discourse relations and their two abstract object arguments over the 1 million word Wall Street Journal corpus. We describe all aspects of the annotation, including (a) the argument structure of discourse relations, (b) the sense annotation of the relations, and (c) the attribution of discourse relations and each of their arguments. We list the differences between PDTB-1.0 and PDTB-2.0. We present representative statistics for several aspects of the annotation in the corpus. In example (1), a sentence from a Wall Street Journal article taken from the Penn TreeBank corpus is further segmented into four EDUs, (1a), (1b), (1c) and (1d) (RST, 2002). Discourse segmentation, clearly, is not as easy as sentence boundary detection. The lack of consensus with regards to what constitutes an elementary discourse unit adds to the difficulty. Building a rule based discourse segmenter can be a tedious task since these rules would have to be based on the underlying grammar of the particular parser that is to be used. Therefore, we adopted a neural network model for automatically building a discourse segmenter from an underlying corpus of segmented text. We chose to use part-of-speech tags, syntactic information, discourse cues and punctuation. Our ultimate goal is to build a discourse parser that uses this discourse segmenter. The data that we used to train and test our discourse segmenter is the RST-DT (RST, 2002) corpus. The corpus contains 385 Wall Street Journal articles from the Penn Treebank. The training set consists of 347 articles for a total of 6132 sentences, whilst the test set contains 38 articles for a total of 991 sentences. The RST-DT corpus provides us with pairs of sentences and EDUs. For the syntactic structure of the sentences, we have used both the gold standard Penn Treebank data and syntactic parse trees generated by (Charniak, 2000). As regards the discourse cues, we used a list of 168 possible discourse markers. We present an implicit discourse relation classifier in the Penn Discourse Treebank (PDTB). Our classifier considers the context of the two arguments, word pair information, as well as the arguments' internal constituent and dependency parses. Our results on the PDTB yields a significant 14.1 improvement over the baseline. In our error analysis, we discuss four challenges in recognizing implicit relations in the PDTB. Text-level discourse parsing is notoriously difficult, as distinctions between discourse relations require subtle semantic judgments that are not easily captured using standard features. In this paper, we present a representation learning approach, in which we transform surface features into a latent space that facilitates RST discourse parsing. By combining the machinery of large-margin transition-based structured prediction with representation learning, our method jointly learns to parse discourse while at the same time learning a discourse-driven projection of surface features. The resulting shift-reduce discourse parser obtains substantial improvements over the previous state-of-the-art in predicting relations and nuclearity on the RST Treebank.