Discourse parsing based on Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT) is crucial for capturing the structural dynamics of dialogues. However, most prior research focuses on English, and its effectiveness for Japanese remains unclear owing to the lack of Japanese SDRT corpora. To address this issue, we construct Japanese SDRT corpora by translating existing English SDRT corpora using an LLM. Through a comparative evaluation of prompt-based and fine-tuned LLMs, we show that the models achieve comparable performance between English and Japanese, suggesting the cross-lingual applicability of SDRT-based discourse parsing. In order to investigate why the English and Japanese parsers achieve similar performance, we conduct ablation analyses on discourse markers and contextual inputs. Our results reveal that most of the Japanese discourse markers we examined have little impact, and the models' predictions depend heavily on contextual discourse relations rather than on the content of the context clauses. This structural reliance might explain the comparable performance despite the substantial typological differences between English and Japanese.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An extract from MSDC, represented as a discourse graph. EDUs and EEUs are shown in roman and italic fonts, respectively.
Annotator1
Annotator2
Annotator3
Mean
97.2
88.3
88.7
Standard error
0.3
0.2
0.3
Table 1: Mean translation evaluation scores and standard errors for each annotator.
Model
Llama-3
Swallow-3
Llama-3.1
Swallow-3.1
GPT-5.5
Method
Llamipa
0shot
1shot
4shot
0shot
1shot
4shot
0shot
1shot
4shot
Supports
Ackn.
0.86
0.85
0.56
0.43
0.43
0.51
0.36
0.15
0.56
0.76
0.78
792
Alte.
0.81
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.76
0.65
0.88
24
Clari-Q.
0.67
0.68
0.08
0.24
0.27
0.01
0.19
0.08
0.40
0.58
0.60
134
Comm.
0.58
0.58
0.16
0.23
0.12
0.19
0.14
0.03
0.34
0.47
0.49
382
Cond.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.22
0.00
13
Table 2: F1-scores for Llamipa and prompt-based parsers on the Japanese MSDC. "Supports" represents the number of instances per relation in the test data, and discourse relations are abbreviated. Bold values indicate the highest F1-scores. The models were evaluated on a subset of gold relations from the MSDC corpus (cf. Appendix E ).
Dataset
MSDC
STAC
Language
EN
JA
JA
Supports
EN
JA
JA
Supports
Base model
Llama-3
Llama-3
Swallow-3
Llama-3
Llama-3
Swallow-3
Ackn.
0.86
0.86
0.85
792
0.61
0.62
0.65
173
Alte.
0.90
0.81
0.90
24
0.67
0.59
0.62
10
Back.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.00
0.20
0.00
9
Clari-Q.
0.69
0.67
0.68
134
0.50
0.46
0.50
48
Table 3: F1-scores of Llamipa on the MSDC and STAC datasets. "Supports" indicates the number of instances per relation in the test data. Discourse relations are abbreviated. "n/a" indicates that the relation is not included in the respective dataset. Bold values denote the best F1-scores.
Expression
Relation
Occurrence
Position
それから ( sorekara )
Narr.
36/54
y
そしたら ( sositara )
Narr.
36/40
y
Resu.
35/40
y
じゃあ ( jaa )
Narr.
284/379
y
Resu.
316/379
y
だから ( dakara )
Elab.
41/47
y
Table 4: The statistics of the ablation study on target expressions. The “Occurrence” column is presented in the format (a/b) , where a is the number of times the linguistic expression appears at the position specified in the “Position” column, and b is the total number of clauses in which the expression occurs. In the “Position” column, x and y denote the first and second arguments of the discourse relation, respectively.
Figure 2: Depiction of the context clause masking.
Model
Llama-3-base
Swallow-base
Expression
Rel.
F1
Pred.
F1
Pred.
それから ( sorekara )
Narr.
0.89/0.90
46/31
0.89/0.90
43/33
そしたら ( sositara )
Narr.
0.89/0.89
35/33
0.89/0.89
36/34
Resu.
0.91/0.91
35/34
0.91/0.91
36/35
じゃあ ( jaa )
Narr.
0.89/0.89
282/272
0.89/0.88
290/274
Resu.
0.91/0.91
308/300
0.91/0.91
313/298
Table 5: F1-scores and the number of predictions (Pred.) before and after ablation. In the “F1” column, the notation b/a indicates the scores before ( b ) and after ( a ) ablation, respectively. Similarly, in the “Pred.” column, b/a denotes that out of b original predictions, a remained unchanged after the target expressions were ablated.
Model
Llama-3-base
Swallow-base
Language
EN
JA
JA
Before/After
Before/After
Before/After
Ackn.
0.86/0.71
0.86/0.70
0.86/0.74
Alte.
0.88/0.65
0.79/0.67
0.90/0.83
Clari-Q.
0.70/0.33
0.68/0.21
0.68/0.52
Comm.
0.59/0.40
0.58/0.46
0.59/0.48
Table 6: F1-scores before and after ablation of input discourse relations. The “Weighted” row indicates the overall performance weighted by relation frequency.
Model
Llama-3-base
Swallow-base
Language
EN
JA
JA
Before/After
Before/After
Before/After
Ackn.
0.86/0.81
0.86/0.80
0.86/0.70
Alte.
0.88/0.88
0.79/0.82
0.90/0.91
Clari-Q.
0.70/0.62
0.68/0.65
0.68/0.66
Comm.
0.59/0.54
0.58/0.52
0.59/0.54
Table 7: F1-scores before and after masking of the content of the context clauses. The “Weighted” indicates the overall performance weighted by relation frequency.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Index
Speaker
Text
2
Builder
“lets do this”
“やろうか”
3
Architect
“place a red block in front of the blue block”
“青いブロックの前に赤いブロックを置いてください”
4
Architect
“along the line toward the purple block”
“紫のブロックに向かう線に沿って”
Appendix
Table 8: Examples of translation of MSDC. The sentence above is the original English, while the sentence below is the Japanese translation.
Speaker
Text
Builder
“any color”
Builder
“or still orange?”
Builder
“どんな色でもいいよ”
Builder
“それともオレンジのままでいい?”
Architect
“on the top orange block”
Architect
“put a yellow block to the left of it”
Appendix
Table 9: Examples of translation errors. In each example, the upper segment provides the original English excerpt, and the lower segment presents its corresponding Japanese translation.
GPUs
NVIDIA Hopper H100
Hyperparameters
training epochs
3
batch size
1
optimizer
Adam
learning rate
2e-4
Appendix
Table 10: Hyperparameters for the training.
EN (Llama-3-base)
JA (Llama-3-base)
JA (Swallow-base)
Relation
Prec.
Recall
F1
Prec.
Recall
F1
Prec.
Recall
F1
Supports
Ackn.
0.86
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.87
0.86
0.85
0.85
0.85
792
Alte.
0.85
0.96
0.90
0.70
0.96
0.81
0.85
0.96
0.90
24
Clari-Q.
0.67
0.72
0.69
0.66
0.69
0.67
0.66
0.70
0.68
134
Comm.
0.62
0.54
0.58
0.63
0.54
0.58
0.65
0.53
0.58
382
Cond.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13
Appendix
Table 11: Performance of the constructed SDRT parsers. The “Supports” column indicates the number of instances for each relation in the test data. The Relation labels are shown in abbreviated form. The best F1-scores among the models are highlighted in bold.
EN (Llama-3-base)
JA (Llama-3-base)
JA (Swallow-base)
Relation
Prec.
Recall
F1
Prec.
Recall
F1
Prec.
Recall
F1
Supports
Ackn.
0.64
0.58
0.61
0.63
0.61
0.62
0.65
0.66
0.65
173
Alte.
0.75
0.60
0.67
0.71
0.50
0.59
0.83
0.50
0.62
10
Back.
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.11
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
9
Clari-Q.
0.44
0.58
0.50
0.39
0.54
0.46
0.46
0.54
0.50
48
Comm.
0.58
0.62
0.60
0.58
0.63
0.60
0.58
0.62
0.60
222
Appendix
Table 12: Performance of the constructed SDRT parsers on STAC. The “Supports” column indicates the number of instances for each relation in the test data. The Relation labels are shown in abbreviated form. The best F1-scores among the models are highlighted in bold.
Llama-3
Swallow-3
Llama-3.1
Swallow-3.1
GPT-5.5
Llamipa
0shot
1shot
4shot
0shot
1shot
4shot
0shot
1shot
4shot
Relation
EN
JA
JA
EN
JA
EN
JA
EN
JA
JA
JA
JA
EN
JA
EN
JA
EN
JA
Support
Ackn.
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.56
0.56
0.47
0.43
0.40
0.43
0.51
0.36
0.15
0.55
0.56
0.76
0.76
0.78
0.78
792
Alte.
0.90
0.81
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.68
0.76
0.88
0.65
0.88
0.88
24
Clari-Q.
0.69
0.67
0.68
0.06
0.08
0.22
0.24
0.29
0.27
0.01
0.19
0.08
0.44
0.40
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.60
134
Comm.
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.16
0.16
0.28
0.23
0.25
0.12
0.19
0.14
0.03
0.33
0.34
0.45
0.47
0.52
0.49
382
Appendix
Table 13: F1-scores for Llamipa and prompt-based methods, evaluated on a subset of gold relations from the MSDC corpus (cf. Appendix E ). "Support" represents the number of instances per relation in the test data, and discourse relations are abbreviated.
Llama-3
Swallow-3
Llama-3.1
Swallow-3.1
GPT-5.5
Llamipa
0shot
1shot
4shot
0shot
1shot
4shot
0shot
1shot
4shot
Relation
EN
JA
JA
EN
JA
EN
JA
EN
JA
JA
JA
JA
EN
JA
EN
JA
EN
JA
Support
Ackn.
0.86
0.86
0.85
0.56
0.56
0.47
0.43
0.40
0.43
0.51
0.36
0.15
0.55
0.56
0.76
0.76
0.78
0.78
792
Alte.
0.90
0.81
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.68
0.76
0.88
0.65
0.88
0.88
24
Clari-Q.
0.69
0.67
0.68
0.06
0.08
0.22
0.24
0.29
0.27
0.01
0.19
0.08
0.44
0.40
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.60
134
Comm.
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.15
0.14
0.26
0.21
0.23
0.11
0.18
0.13
0.03
0.31
0.32
0.42
0.43
0.48
0.46
434
Appendix
Table 14: F1-scores for Llamipa and prompt-based methods on the MSDC corpus, evaluated across all gold relations. "Support" represents the number of instances per relation in the test data, and discourse relations are abbreviated.
Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) parsing has historically been dominated by discriminative models based on pretrained encoder-only language models. The recent availability of high-quality generative language models has made it unclear whether RST parsing is better approached as a generative task. In this work, we investigate whether generative language models are better at parsing RST than traditional discriminative ones. We find that at matched parameter counts, discriminative parsers perform much better than generative ones, though much larger generative models sometimes outperform them. Generative models hold a particular advantage in elementary discourse unit (EDU) segmentation, and we report new state-of-the-art results on the RST-DT benchmark in end-to-end parsing as well as segmentation.
Luke Gessler, Amir Zeldes
Indiana University Bloomington Department of Linguistics · Georgetown University Department of Linguistics
Discourse particles, such as well and kind of, are crucial components that enable LLMs to "speak" more like humans. They are used to convey emotions, intentions, and interpersonal attitudes. However, existing studies have not yet built a comprehensive understanding of LLMs' capabilities in handling discourse particles. Moreover, the limited number of research focuses primarily on high-resource languages such as English, with little attention paid to Southeast Asian languages. In this paper, we (1) propose MalayPrag, a benchmark designed to systematically evaluate and analyze LLMs' capabilities in handling discourse particles in colloquial Malay; (2) introduce five attributes that provide a theoretically grounded, unified framework for interpreting pragmatic functions of discourse particles. Applying these two, we prompt ten off-the-shelf LLMs to perform three prediction tasks. The experimental results reveal substantial challenges for current LLMs to accurately connect discourse particles and their pragmatic functions in Malay. The provision of the five attributes designed in this study is found to significantly improve the connections, highlighting the need for structured scaffolding for models' pragmatic competence.
Mariah Al Giptiah Binte Yusoff, Jakin Tan, Bocheng Chen +2
Nanyang Technological University · University of Mississippi · Indiana University
Large language models work well on English and behave in poorly understood ways on languages typologically far from it. Japanese is a clean example, where evaluation still leans on translation quality and JGLUE-style benchmarks, which roll lexical, syntactic and pragmatic competence into a single score. The phenomena on which general-purpose models fail Japanese users are pragmatic: honorifics, in-group and out-group reference, context-sensitive politeness, zero anaphora. I introduce J-PragEval-v0, a minimal-pair benchmark isolating four such phenomena from surface fluency, and combine it with linear probes and teacher-forced log-probability evaluation to ask where inside TinySwallow-1.5B (28 layers, hidden size 1536) the corresponding contrasts live. The four features split three ways. Honorific register sits cleanly in the residual stream: 0.96 balanced accuracy at layer 15, and the model flips its preferred continuation with the scenario on 93 percent of items. Implicit subject and in-group reference are not linearly decodable at the final prompt token (0.48 and 0.38), yet flip rates are 0.77 and 0.79, so the contrast is worked out during generation rather than stored at the prompt. Indirect refusal is the negative case: 0.95 probe accuracy collapsing to a 0.43 flip rate under length-normalised teacher forcing, because the current minimal pairs conflate politeness with continuation length. I also specify Pragmatic Representation Steering, a parameter-free inference-time method that edits residual-stream activations along the class-mean-difference directions probing identifies. Feasibility is argued indirectly rather than demonstrated: the contrastive activation addition baseline, the same geometry the method would inject, recovers probe accuracy within one to two points of logistic regression wherever a linear signal exists. Scaling to Llama-3.1-Swallow-8B is the next step.