Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
102 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Structured Dialogue Discourse Parsing (2306.15103v1)

Published 26 Jun 2023 in cs.CL

Abstract: Dialogue discourse parsing aims to uncover the internal structure of a multi-participant conversation by finding all the discourse~\emph{links} and corresponding~\emph{relations}. Previous work either treats this task as a series of independent multiple-choice problems, in which the link existence and relations are decoded separately, or the encoding is restricted to only local interaction, ignoring the holistic structural information. In contrast, we propose a principled method that improves upon previous work from two perspectives: encoding and decoding. From the encoding side, we perform structured encoding on the adjacency matrix followed by the matrix-tree learning algorithm, where all discourse links and relations in the dialogue are jointly optimized based on latent tree-level distribution. From the decoding side, we perform structured inference using the modified Chiu-Liu-Edmonds algorithm, which explicitly generates the labeled multi-root non-projective spanning tree that best captures the discourse structure. In addition, unlike in previous work, we do not rely on hand-crafted features; this improves the model's robustness. Experiments show that our method achieves new state-of-the-art, surpassing the previous model by 2.3 on STAC and 1.5 on Molweni (F1 scores). \footnote{Code released at~\url{https://github.com/chijames/structured_dialogue_discourse_parsing}.}

PDF HTML Abstract
Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Bookmark Chat Bubble Oval Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Chat (Pro)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (61)
  1. Discourse parsing for multi-party chat dialogues. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
  2. Discourse structure and dialogue acts in multiparty dialogue: the stac corpus. In 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), pages 2721–2727.
  3. Better document-level sentiment analysis from RST discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2212–2218, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  4. Cross-lingual RST discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, pages 292–304, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  5. Danqi Chen and Christopher D Manning. 2014. A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 740–750.
  6. Improved neural machine translation with a syntax-aware encoder and decoder. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1936–1945, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  7. Jiaao Chen and Diyi Yang. 2021. Structure-aware abstractive conversation summarization via discourse and action graphs. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1380–1391, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  8. Learning to compose task-specific tree structures. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 32.
  9. Jinho D Choi and Martha Palmer. 2011. Getting the most out of transition-based dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 687–692.
  10. Yoeng-Jin Chu. 1965. On the shortest arborescence of a directed graph. Scientia Sinica, 14:1396–1400.
  11. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  12. Timothy Dozat and Christopher D. Manning. 2017. Deep biaffine attention for neural dependency parsing. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net.
  13. Jack Edmonds. 1967. Optimum branchings. Journal of Research of the national Bureau of Standards B, 71(4):233–240.
  14. Micha Elsner and Eugene Charniak. 2008. You talking to me? a corpus and algorithm for conversation disentanglement. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages 834–842.
  15. Micha Elsner and Eugene Charniak. 2011. Disentangling chat with local coherence models. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1179–1189.
  16. Dialogue discourse-aware graph model and data augmentation for meeting summarization. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, pages 3808–3814. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track.
  17. Discourse complements lexical semantics for non-factoid answer reranking. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 977–986.
  18. A latent variable recurrent neural network for discourse-driven language models. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 332–342, San Diego, California. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  19. Yangfeng Ji and Noah A. Smith. 2017. Neural discourse structure for text categorization. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 996–1005, Vancouver, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  20. Multi-turn response selection using dialogue dependency relations. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1911–1920, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  21. Learning to disentangle interleaved conversational threads with a siamese hierarchical network and similarity ranking. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1812–1822.
  22. Codra: A novel discriminative framework for rhetorical analysis. Computational Linguistics, 41(3):385–435.
  23. Daniel Jurafsky and James H. Martin. 2021. 22, 3 edition.
  24. Structured attention networks. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net.
  25. Terry Koo and Michael Collins. 2010. Efficient third-order dependency parsers. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1–11.
  26. Structured prediction models via the matrix-tree theorem. In Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), pages 141–150.
  27. Joseph B Kruskal. 1956. On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proceedings of the American Mathematical society, 7(1):48–50.
  28. A large-scale corpus for conversation disentanglement. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3846–3856, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  29. Alex Lascarides and Nicholas Asher. 2008. Segmented discourse representation theory: Dynamic semantics with discourse structure. In Computing meaning, pages 87–124. Springer.
  30. Molweni: A challenge multiparty dialogues-based machine reading comprehension dataset with discourse structure. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2642–2652, Barcelona, Spain (Online). International Committee on Computational Linguistics.
  31. Segbot: A generic neural text segmentation model with pointer network. In IJCAI, pages 4166–4172.
  32. Discourse parsing with attention-based hierarchical neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 362–371.
  33. Text-level discourse dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 25–35.
  34. Dialbert: A hierarchical pre-trained model for conversation disentanglement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03760.
  35. Yang Liu and Mirella Lapata. 2017. Learning contextually informed representations for linear-time discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1289–1298.
  36. Yang Liu and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Learning structured text representations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:63–75.
  37. Zhengyuan Liu and Nancy Chen. 2021. Improving multi-party dialogue discourse parsing via domain integration. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Approaches to Discourse, pages 122–127, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic and Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  38. William C Mann and Sandra A Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8(3):243–281.
  39. Non-projective dependency parsing using spanning tree algorithms. In Proceedings of human language technology conference and conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 523–530.
  40. Ryan McDonald and Giorgio Satta. 2007. On the complexity of non-projective data-driven dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Parsing Technologies, pages 121–132.
  41. Igor Aleksandrovic Mel’cuk et al. 1988. Dependency syntax: theory and practice. SUNY press.
  42. Thomas Meyer and Andrei Popescu-Belis. 2012. Using sense-labeled discourse connectives for statistical machine translation. In Proceedings of the EACL2012 Workshop on Hybrid Approaches to Machine Translation (HyTra), CONF.
  43. Karthik Narasimhan and Regina Barzilay. 2015. Machine comprehension with discourse relations. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1253–1262.
  44. Sparsemap: Differentiable sparse structured inference. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3799–3808. PMLR.
  45. Dialogue graph modeling for conversational machine reading. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 3158–3169, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  46. Gradient estimation with stochastic softmax tricks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual.
  47. Integer linear programming for discourse parsing. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT 2016), pages 99–109.
  48. The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08), Marrakech, Morocco. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
  49. Robert Clay Prim. 1957. Shortest connection networks and some generalizations. The Bell System Technical Journal, 36(6):1389–1401.
  50. Universal Dependency parsing from scratch. In Proceedings of the CoNLL 2018 Shared Task: Multilingual Parsing from Raw Text to Universal Dependencies, pages 160–170, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  51. Adwait Ratnaparkhi. 1997. A simple introduction to maximum entropy models for natural language processing. IRCS Technical Reports Series, page 81.
  52. Thread detection in dynamic text message streams. In Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, pages 35–42.
  53. Zhouxing Shi and Minlie Huang. 2019. A deep sequential model for discourse parsing on multi-party dialogues. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7007–7014.
  54. David A Smith and Jason Eisner. 2008. Dependency parsing by belief propagation. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 145–156.
  55. Rajen Subba and Barbara Di Eugenio. 2007. Automatic discourse segmentation using neural networks. In Proc. of the 11th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, pages 189–190.
  56. WT Tutte. 1984. Graph theory, encyclopedia of mathematics and it applications.
  57. A structure self-aware model for discourse parsing on multi-party dialogues. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21, pages 3943–3949. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. Main Track.
  58. Lidan Wang and Douglas W Oard. 2009. Context-based message expansion for disentanglement of interleaved text conversations. In Proceedings of human language technologies: The 2009 annual conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics, pages 200–208. Citeseer.
  59. Transition-based neural rst parsing with implicit syntax features. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 559–570.
  60. Tao Yu and Shafiq Joty. 2020. Online conversation disentanglement with pointer networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6321–6330, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  61. Who did they respond to? conversation structure modeling using masked hierarchical transformer. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 9741–9748.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (2)
  1. Ta-Chung Chi (19 papers)
  2. Alexander I. Rudnicky (9 papers)
Citations (9)
View on Semantic Scholar