Papers › What Causes the Failure of Explicit to Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition?

What Causes the Failure of Explicit to Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition?

1 Apr 2024arXiv:2404.00999archive 2025-07-28

Wei Liu, Stephen Wan, Michael Strube

We consider an unanswered question in the discourse processing community: why do relation classifiers trained on explicit examples (with connectives removed) perform poorly in real implicit scenarios? Prior work claimed this is due to linguistic dissimilarity between explicit and implicit examples but provided no empirical evidence. In this study, we show that one cause for such failure is a label shift after connectives are eliminated. Specifically, we find that the discourse relations expressed by some explicit instances will change when connectives disappear. Unlike previous work manually analyzing a few examples, we present empirical evidence at the corpus level to prove the existence of such shift. Then, we analyze why label shift occurs by considering factors such as the syntactic role played by connectives, ambiguity of connectives, and more. Finally, we investigate two strategies to mitigate the label shift: filtering out noisy data and joint learning with connectives. Experiments on PDTB 2.0, PDTB 3.0, and the GUM dataset demonstrate that classifiers trained with our strategies outperform strong baselines.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

7 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 7 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from liuwei1206/Exp2Imp. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections