Neural approaches to discourse coherence: modeling, evaluation and application

Discourse coherence is an important aspect of text quality that refers to the way different textual units relate to each other. In this thesis, I investigate neural approaches to modeling discourse coherence. I present a multi-task neural network where the main task is to predict a document-level coherence score and the secondary task is to learn word-level syntactic features. Additionally, I examine the effect of using contextualised word representations in single-task and multi-task setups. I evaluate my models on a synthetic dataset where incoherent documents are created by shuffling the sentence order in coherent original documents. The results show the efficacy of my multi-task learning approach, particularly when enhanced with contextualised embeddings, achieving new state-of-the-art results in ranking the coherent documents higher than the incoherent ones (96.9%). Furthermore, I apply my approach to the realistic domain of people’s everyday writing, such as emails and online posts, and further demonstrate its ability to capture various degrees of coherence. In order to further investigate the linguistic properties captured by coherence models, I create two datasets that exhibit syntactic and semantic alterations. Evaluating different models on these datasets reveals their ability to capture syntactic perturbations but their inadequacy to detect semantic changes. I find that semantic alterations are instead captured by models that first build sentence representations from averaged word embeddings, then apply a set of linear transformations over input sentence pairs. Finally, I present an application for coherence models in the pedagogical domain. I first demonstrate that state of-the-art neural approaches to automated essay scoring (AES) are not robust to adversarially created, grammatical, but incoherent sequences of sentences. Accordingly, I propose a framework for integrating and jointly training a coherence model with a state-of-the-art neural AES system in order to enhance its ability to detect such adversarial input. I show that this joint framework maintains a performance comparable to the state-of-the-art AES system in predicting a holistic essay score while significantly outperforming it in adversarial detection

Multi-Task Learning for Coherence Modeling.

We address the task of assessing discourse coherence, an aspect of text quality that is essential for many NLP tasks, such as summarization and language assessment. We propose a hierarchical neural network trained in a multi-task fashion that learns to predict a document-level coherence score (at the network's top layers) along with word-level grammatical roles (at the bottom layers), taking advantage of inductive transfer between the two tasks. We assess the extent to which our framework generalizes to different domains and prediction tasks, and demonstrate its effectiveness not only on standard binary evaluation coherence tasks, but also on real-world tasks involving the prediction of varying degrees of coherence, achieving a new state of the art

Neural Automated Essay Scoring and Coherence Modeling for Adversarially Crafted Input

We demonstrate that current state-of-the-art approaches to Automated Essay Scoring (AES) are not well-suited to capturing adversarially crafted input of grammatical but incoherent sequences of sentences. We develop a neural model of local coherence that can effectively learn connectedness features between sentences, and propose a framework for integrating and jointly training the local coherence model with a state-of-the-art AES model. We evaluate our approach against a number of baselines and experimentally demonstrate its effectiveness on both the AES task and the task of flagging adversarial input, further contributing to the development of an approach that strengthens the validity of neural essay scoring models

Opening up Minds with Argumentative Dialogues

Recent research on argumentative dialogues has focused on persuading people to take some action, changing their stance on the topic of discussion, or winning debates. In this work, we focus on argumentative dialogues that aim at opening up (rather than changing) people's minds to help them become more understanding to views that are unfamiliar or in opposition to their own convictions. To this end, we present a dataset of 183 argumentative dialogues about 3 controversial topics: veganism, Brexit and COVID-19 vaccination. The dialogues were collected using the Wizard of Oz approach, where wizards leverage a knowledge-base of arguments to converse with participants. Open-mindedness is measured before and after engaging in the dialogue using a questionnaire from the psychology literature, and success of the dialogue is measured as the change in the participant’s stance towards those who hold opinions different to theirs. We evaluate two dialogue models: a Wikipedia-based and an argument-based model. We show that while both models perform closely in terms of opening up minds, the argument-based model is significantly better on other dialogue properties such as engagement and clarity