Training Data Enrichment for Infrequent Discourse Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discourse parsing is a popular technique widely used in text understanding, sentiment analysis and other NLP tasks. However, for most discourse parsers, the performance varies significantly across different discourse relations. In this paper, we first validate the underfitting hypothesis, i.e., the less frequent a relation is in the training data, the poorer the performance on that relation. We then explore how to increase the number of positive training instances, without resorting to manually creating additional labeled data. We propose a training data enrichment framework that relies on co-training of two different discourse parsers on unlabeled documents. Importantly, we show that co-training alone is not sufficient. The framework requires a filtering step to ensure that only “good quality” unlabeled documents can be used for enrichment and re-training. We propose and evaluate two ways to perform the filtering. The first is to use an agreement score between the two parsers. The second is to use only the confidence score of the faster parser. Our empirical results show that agreement score can help to boost the performance on infrequent relations, and that the confidence score is a viable approximation of the agreement score for infrequent relations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".