The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automatic sense prediction for implicit discourse relations in text
Open accessAbstract
We present a series of experiments on automatically identifying the sense of implicit discourse relations, i.e. relations that are not marked with a discourse connective such as "but" or "because". We work with a corpus of implicit relations present in newspaper text and report results on a test set that is representative of the naturally occurring distribution of senses. We use several linguistically informed features, including polarity tags, Levin verb classes, length of verb phrases, modality, context, and lexical features. In addition, we revisit past approaches using lexical pairs from unannotated text as features, explain some of their shortcomings and propose modifications. Our best combination of features outperforms the baseline from data intensive approaches by 4% for comparison and 16% for contingency.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization
MANN, W. C., & THOMPSON, S. A. (1988) · Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse · doi:10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 · Cited by 3,853
Cited by
Parsing Argumentation Structures in Persuasive Essays
Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2017) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00295 · Cited by 388
Identifying Argumentative Discourse Structures in Persuasive Essays
Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1006 · Cited by 363
That is your evidence?: Classifying stance in online political debate
Walker, M. A., Anand, P., Abbott, R., Tree, J. E. F., Martell, C., & King, J. (2012) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.032 · Cited by 104
Automated Essay Scoring with Discourse-Aware Neural Models
Nadeem, F., Nguyen, H., Liu, Y., & Ostendorf, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications · doi:10.18653/v1/w19-4450 · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- Pitler, E., Louis, A., & Nenkova, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP: Volume 2 - ACL-IJCNLP '09
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 2
- Pages
- 683
- OpenAlex
- W2109462987
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.11
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automatic sense prediction for implicit discourse relations in text. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3115/1690219.1690241
- The paper
- Pitler, E., Louis, A., & Nenkova, A. (2009). Automatic sense prediction for implicit discourse relations in text. Proceedings of the Joint Conference of the 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and the 4th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the AFNLP: Volume 2 - ACL-IJCNLP '09. https://doi.org/10.3115/1690219.1690241
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.