Prompting Implicit Discourse Relation Annotation

Pre-trained large language models, such as ChatGPT, archive outstanding performance in various reasoning tasks without supervised training and were found to have outperformed crowdsourcing workers. Nonetheless, ChatGPT's performance in the task of implicit discourse relation classification, prompted by a standard multiple-choice question, is still far from satisfactory and considerably inferior to state-of-the-art supervised approaches. This work investigates several proven prompting techniques to improve ChatGPT's recognition of discourse relations. In particular, we experimented with breaking down the classification task that involves numerous abstract labels into smaller subtasks. Nonetheless, experiment results show that the inference accuracy hardly changes even with sophisticated prompt engineering, suggesting that implicit discourse relation classification is not yet resolvable under zero-shot or few-shot settings.

Low-Resource Cross-Lingual Adaptive Training for Nigerian Pidgin

Developing effective spoken language processing systems for low-resource languages poses several challenges due to the lack of parallel data and limited resources for fine-tuning models. In this work, we target on improving upon both text classification and translation of Nigerian Pidgin (Naija) by collecting a large-scale parallel English-Pidgin corpus and further propose a framework of cross-lingual adaptive training that includes both continual and task adaptive training so as to adapt a base pre-trained model to low-resource languages. Our studies show that English pre-trained language models serve as a stronger prior than multilingual language models on English-Pidgin tasks with up to 2.38 BLEU improvements; and demonstrate that augmenting orthographic data and using task adaptive training with back-translation can have a significant impact on model performance.

How compatible are our discourse annotations? Insights from mapping RST-DT and PDTB annotations

Discourse-annotated corpora are an important resource for the community, but they are often annotated according to different frameworks. This makes comparison of the annotations difficult, thereby also preventing researchers from searching the corpora in a unified way, or using all annotated data jointly to train computational systems. Several theoretical proposals have recently been made for mapping the relational labels of different frameworks to each other, but these proposals have so far not been validated against existing annotations. The two largest discourse relation annotated resources, the Penn Discourse Treebank and the Rhetorical Structure Theory Discourse Treebank, have however been annotated on the same text, allowing for a direct comparison of the annotation layers. We propose a method for automatically aligning the discourse segments, and then evaluate existing mapping proposals by comparing the empirically observed against the proposed mappings. Our analysis highlights the influence of segmentation on subsequent discourse relation labeling, and shows that while agreement between frameworks is reasonable for explicit relations, agreement on implicit relations is low. We identify several sources of systematic discrepancies between the two annotation schemes and discuss consequences of these discrepancies for future annotation and for the training of automatic discourse relation labellers.