Unsupervised Learning of Discourse Structures using a Tree Autoencoder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discourse information, as postulated by popular discourse theories, such as RST and PDTB, has been shown to improve an increasing number of downstream NLP tasks, showing positive effects and synergies of discourse with important real-world applications. While methods for incorporating discourse become more and more sophisticated, the growing need for robust and general discourse structures has not been sufficiently met by current discourse parsers, usually trained on small scale datasets in a strictly limited number of domains. This makes the prediction for arbitrary tasks noisy and unreliable. The overall resulting lack of high-quality, high-quantity discourse trees poses a severe limitation to further progress. In order the alleviate this shortcoming, we propose a new strategy to generate tree structures in a task-agnostic, unsupervised fashion by extending a latent tree induction framework with an auto-encoding objective. The proposed approach can be applied to any tree-structured objective, such as syntactic parsing, discourse parsing and others. However, due to the especially difficult annotation process to generate discourse trees, we initially develop a method to generate larger and more diverse discourse treebanks. In this paper we are inferring general tree structures of natural text in multiple domains, showing promising results on a diverse set of tasks.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".