Discourse-Based Objectives
for Fast Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning
Yacine Jernite
Samuel R. Bowman
Department of Computer Science Department of Linguistics
New York University
and Center for Data Science
yacine.jernite@nyu.edu
New York University
bowman@nyu.edu

David Sontag
Department of EECS
Massachussets Institute
of Technology
dsontag@mit.edu

arXiv:1705.00557v1 [cs.CL] 23 Apr 2017

Abstract
This work presents a novel objective function for the unsupervised training of neural network sentence encoders. It exploits
signals from paragraph-level discourse coherence to train these models to understand text. Our objective is purely discriminative, allowing us to train models many
times faster than was possible under prior
methods, and it yields models which perform well in extrinsic evaluations.

1

Task 1:
ORDER
classifier

Task 2:
CONJUNCTION
classifier

Task 3:
NEXT
classifier

Sentence encoder

Sentence encoder

Sentence(s) 1

Sentence(s) 2

Figure 1: We train a sentence encoder (shown
as two copies with shared parameters) on three
discourse-based objectives over unlabeled text.

Introduction

Modern artificial neural network approaches to
natural language understanding tasks like translation (Sutskever et al., 2014; Cho et al., 2014), summarization (Rush et al., 2015), and classification
(Yang et al., 2016) depend crucially on subsystems called sentence encoders that construct distributed representations for sentences. These encoders are typically implemented as convolutional
(Kim, 2014), recursive (Socher et al., 2013), or
recurrent neural networks (Mikolov et al., 2010)
operating over a sentence’s words or characters
(Zhang et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2016).
Most of the early successes with sentence
encoder-based models have been on tasks with
ample training data, where it has been possible to
train the encoders in a fully-supervised end-to-end
setting. However, recent work has shown some
success in using unsupervised pretraining with unlabeled data to both improve the performance of
these methods and extend them to lower-resource
settings (Dai and Le, 2015; Kiros et al., 2015; Bajgar et al., 2016).
This paper presents a set of methods for unsupervised pretraining that train sentence encoders
to recognize discourse coherence. When reading
text, human readers have an expectation of coher-

ence from one sentence to the next. In most cases,
for example, each sentence in a text should be both
interpretable in context and relevant to the topic
under discussion. Both of these properties depend
on an understanding of the local context, which
includes both relatively knowledge about the state
of the world and the specific meanings of previous sentences in the text. Thus, a model that is
successfully trained to recognize discourse coherence must be able to understand the meanings of
sentences as well as relate them to key pieces of
knowledge about the world.
Hobbs (1979) presents a formal treatment of
this phenomenon. He argues that for a discourse
(here, a text) to be interpreted as coherent, any
two adjacent sentences must be related by one of
a few set kinds of coherence relations. For example, a sentence might be followed by another that
elaborates on it, parallels it, or contrasts with it.
While this treatment may not be adequate to cover
the full complexity of language understanding, it
allows Hobbs to show how identifying such relations depends upon sentence understanding, coreference resolution, and commonsense reasoning.
Recently proposed techniques (Kiros et al.,
2015; Ramachandran et al., 2016) succeed in ex-

ploiting discourse coherence information of this
kind to train sentence encoders, but rely on generative objectives which require models to compute
the likelihood of each word in a sentence at training time. In this setting, a single epoch of training on a typical (76M sentence) text corpus can
take weeks, making further research difficult, and
making it nearly impossible to scale these methods
to the full volume of available unlabeled English
text. In this work, we propose alternative objectives which exploit much of the same coherence
information at greatly reduced cost.
In particular, we propose three fast coherencebased pretraining tasks, show that they can be used
together effectively in multitask training (Figure 1), and evaluate models trained in this setting
on the training tasks themselves and on standard
text classification tasks.1 We find that our approach makes it possible to learn to extract broadly
useful sentence representations in hours.

2

Related Work

This work is inspired most directly by the Skip
Thought approach of Kiros et al. (2015), which
introduces the use of paragraph-level discourse information for the unsupervised pretraining of sentence encoders. Since that work, three other papers have presented improvements to this method
(the SDAE of Hill et al. 2016, also Gan et al.
2016; Ramachandran et al. 2016). These improved
methods are based on techniques and goals that are
similar to ours, but all three involve models that
explicitly generate full sentences during training
time at considerable computational cost.
In closely related work, Logeswaran et al.
(2016) present a model that learns to order the
sentences of a paragraph. While they focus on
learning to assess coherence, they show positive results on measuring sentence similarity using their trained encoder. Alternately, the FastSent model of Hill et al. (2016) is designed to
work dramatically more quickly than systems like
Skip Thought, but in service of this goal the standard sentence encoder RNN is replaced with a
low-capacity CBOW model. Their method does
well on existing semantic textual similarity benchmarks, but its insensitivity to order places an upper
bound on its performance in more intensive extrinsic language understanding tasks.
1
All code, resources, and models involved in these experiments will be made available upon publication.

Sentence Pair

Label

Relation

A strong one at that.
Then I became a woman.

Y

elaboration

I saw flowers on the ground.
I heard birds in the trees.

N

list

It limped closer at a slow pace.
Soon it stopped in front of us.

N

spatial

I kill Ben, you leave by yourself.
I kill your uncle, you join Ben.

Y

time

Table 1: The binary ORDER objective. Discourse
relation labels are provided for the reader, but are
not available to the model.
Looking beyond work on unsupervised pretraining: Li and Hovy (2014) and Li and Jurafsky (2016) use representation learning systems to
directly model the problem of sentence order recovery, but focus primarily on intrinsic evaluation rather than transfer. Wang and Cho (2016)
train sentence representations for use as context in
language modeling. In addition, Ji et al. (2016)
treat discourse relations between sentences as latent variables and show that this yields improvements in language modeling in an extension of the
document-context model of Ji et al. (2015).
Outside the context of representation learning,
there has been a good deal of work in NLP on discourse coherence, and on the particular tasks of
sentence ordering and coherence scoring. Barzilay and Lapata (2008) provide thorough coverage
of this work.

3

Discourse Inspired Objectives

In this work, we propose three objective functions
for use over paragraphs extracted from unlabeled
text. Each captures a different aspect of discourse
coherence and together the three can be used to
train a single encoder to extract broadly useful sentence representations.
Binary Ordering of Sentences Many coherence relations have an inherent direction. For example, if S1 is an elaboration of S0 , S0 is not
generally an elaboration of S1 . Thus, being able
to identify these coherence relations implies an
ability to recover the original order of the sentences. Our first task, which we call ORDER, consists in taking pairs of adjacent sentences from text
data, switching their order with probability 0.5,
and training a model to decide whether they have
been switched. Table 1 provides some examples of

Context
No, not really.
I had some ideas, some plans.
But I never even caught sight of them.
Candidate Successors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

There’s nothing I can do that compares that.
Then one day Mister Edwards saw me.
I drank and that was about all I did.
And anyway, God’s getting his revenge now.
He offered me a job and somewhere to sleep.

Table 2: The NEXT objective.
Sentence Pair

Label

He had a point.
For good measure, I pouted.

(Still)

RETURN

It doesn’t hurt at all.
It’s exhilarating.

(In fact)

The waterwheel hammered on.
There was silence.

(Otherwise)

STRENGTHEN

CONTRAST

Table 3: The CONJUNCTION objective. Discourse
relation labels are shown with the text from which
they were derived.
this task, along with the kind of coherence relation
that we assume to be involved. It should be noted
that since some of these relations are unordered, it
is not always possible to recover the original order
based on discourse coherence alone (see e.g. the
flowers / birds example).
Next Sentence Many coherence relations are
transitive by nature, so that any two sentences
from the same paragraph will exhibit some coherence. However, two adjacent sentences will
generally be more coherent than two more distant ones. This leads us to formulate the NEXT
task: given the first three sentences of a paragraph
and a set of five candidate sentences from later in
the paragraph, the model must decide which candidate immediately follows the initial three in the
source text. Table 2 presents an example of such a
task: candidates 2 and 3 are coherent with the third
sentence of the paragraph, but the elaboration (3)
takes precedence over the progression (2).
Conjunction Prediction Finally, information
about the coherence relation between two sentences is sometimes apparent in the text (Miltsakaki et al., 2004): this is the case whenever the
second sentence starts with a conjunction phrase.
To form the CONJUNCTION objective, we create

a list of conjunction phrases and group them into
nine categories (see supplementary material). We
then extract from our source text all pairs of sentences where the second starts with one of the
listed conjunctions, give the system the pair without the phrase, and train it to recover the conjunction category. Table 3 provides examples.

4

Experiments

In this section, we introduce our training data and
methods, present qualitative results and comparisons among our three objectives, and close with
quantitative comparisons with related work.
Experimental Setup We train our models on a
combination of data from BookCorpus (Zhu et al.,
2015), the Gutenberg project (Stroube, 2003), and
Wikipedia. After sentence and word tokenization
(with NLTK; Bird, 2006) and lower-casing, we
identify all paragraphs longer than 8 sentences and
extract a NEXT example from each, as well as pairs
of sentences for the ORDER and CONJUNCTION
tasks. This gives us 40M examples for ORDER,
1.4M for CONJUNCTION, and 4.1M for NEXT.
Despite having recently become a standard
dataset for unsupervised learning, BookCorpus
does not exhibit sufficiently rich discourse structure to allow our model to fully succeed—in particular, some of the conjunction categories are
severely under-represented. Because of this, we
choose to train our models on text from all three
sources. While this precludes a strict apples-toapples comparison with other published results,
our goal in extrinsic evaluation is simply to show
that our method makes it possible to learn useful
representations quickly, rather than to demonstrate
the superiority of our learning technique given
fixed data and unlimited time.
We consider three sentence encoding models:
a simple 1024D sum-of-Words (CBOW) encoding, a 1024D GRU recurrent neural network (Cho
et al., 2014), and a 512D bidirectional GRU RNN
(BiGRU). All three use FastText (Joulin et al.,
2016) pre-trained word embeddings2 to which we
apply a Highway transformation (Srivastava et al.,
2015). The encoders are trained jointly with three
bilinear classifiers for the three objectives (for the
NEXT examples, the three context sentences are
encoded separately and their representations are
2
https://github.com/facebookresearch/fastText/
blob/master/pretrained-vectors.md

CONJUNCTION

ORDER

NEXT

CBOW joint
GRU joint
BiGRU joint

42.8
39.5
45.1

56.6
54.3
58.3

27.7
25.9
30.2

BiGRU single

45.5

57.1

29.3

Table 4: Intrinsic evaluation results.
Grant laughed and complied with the suggestion.
Pauline stood for a moment in complete bewilderment.
Her eyes narrowed on him, considering.
Helena felt her face turn red hot.
Her face remained expressionless as dough.

Table 5: The nearest neighbors for a sentence.
concatenated). We perform stochastic gradient descent with AdaGrad (Duchi et al., 2011), subsampling CONJUNCTION and NEXT by a factor of 4
and 6 respectively (chosen using held-out accuracy averaged over all three tasks on held out data
after training on 1M examples). In this setting, the
BiGRU model takes 8 hours to see all of the examples from the BookCorpus dataset at least once.
For ease of comparison, we train all three models
for exactly 8 hours.
Intrinsic and Qualitative Evaluation Table 4
compares the performance of different training
regimes along two axes: encoder architecture and
whether we train one model per task or one joint
model. As expected, the more complex bidirectional GRU architecture is required to capture the
appropriate sentence properties, although CBOW
still manages to beat the simple GRU (the slowest model), likely by virtue of its substantially
faster speed, and correspondingly greater number
of training epochs. Joint training does appear to be
effective, as both the ORDER and NEXT tasks benefit from the information provided by CONJUNC TION . Early experiments on the external evaluation also show that the joint BiGRU model substantially outperforms each single model.
Table 5 and the supplementary material show
nearest neighbors in the trained BiGRU’s representation space for a random set of seed sentences.
We select neighbors from among 400k held-out
sentences. The encoder appears to be especially
sensitive to high-level syntactic structure.
Extrinsic Evaluation We evaluate the quality
of the encoder learned by our system, which we
call DiscSent, by using the sentence representations it produces in a variety of sentence classifi-

Model

Time

MSRP

TREC

SUBJ

FastSent
FastSent+AE1

≈13h

72.2
71.2

76.8
80.4

88.7
88.8

SDAE1
SDAE+embed1

192h

76.4
73.7

77.6
78.4

89.3
90.8

SkipT biGRU2
SkipT GRU2
SkipT+feats2

336h

71.2
73.0
75.8

89.4
91.4
92.2

92.5
92.1
93.6

Ordering model3
Ordering+embed3
+embed+SkipT3

48h

72.3
74.0
74.9

–
–
–

–
–
–

DiscSent biGRU
DiscSent+unigram
DiscSent+embed

8h

71.6
72.5
75.0

81.0
87.9
87.2

88.6
92.7
93.0

1

Table 6: Text classification results, including training time. +embed lines combine the sentence encoder output with the sum of the pretrained word
embeddings for the sentence. +unigram lines do
so using embeddings learned for each target task
without pretraining. +feats varies by task. References: 1 Hill et al. (2016) 2 Kiros et al. (2015)
3 Logeswaran et al. (2016)
cation tasks. We follow the settings of Kiros et al.
(2015) on paraphrase detection (MSRP; Dolan
et al., 2004), subjectivity evaluation (SUBJ; Pang
and Lee, 2004) and question classification (TREC;
Voorhees, 2001).
Overall, our system performs comparably with
the SDAE and Skip Thought approaches with
a drastically shorter training time. Our system
also compares favorably to the similar discourseinspired method of Logeswaran et al. (2016),
achieving similar results on MSRP in a sixth of
their training time.

5

Conclusion

In this work, we introduce three new training objectives for unsupervised sentence representation
learning inspired by the notion of discourse coherence, and use them to train a sentence representation system in competitive time, from 6 to over
40 times shorter than comparable methods, while
obtaining comparable results on external evaluations tasks. We hope that the tasks that we introduce in this paper will prompt further research into
discourse understanding with neural networks, as
well as into strategies for unsupervised learning
that will make it possible to use unlabeled data to
train and refine a broader range of models for language understanding tasks.

References
Ondrej Bajgar, Rudolf Kadlec, and Jan Kleindienst.
2016. Embracing data abundance: BookTest dataset
for reading comprehension. CoRR abs/1610.00956.
Regina Barzilay and Mirella Lapata. 2008. Modeling
local coherence: An entity-based approach. Computational Linguistics 34.

Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Ruslan Salakhutdinov,
Richard S. Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Skip-thought vectors.
In NIPS 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jiwei Li and Eduard H. Hovy. 2014. A model of coherence based on distributed sentence representation.
In EMNLP 2014, Doha, Qatar.

Steven Bird. 2006. NLTK: the natural language toolkit.
In ACL 2006, Sydney, Australia.

Jiwei Li and Dan Jurafsky. 2016. Neural net models for open-domain discourse coherence. CoRR
abs/1606.01545.

Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Dzmitry Bahdanau, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. On the properties
of neural machine translation: Encoder-decoder approaches. In EMNLP 2014, Doha, Qatar.

Lajanugen Logeswaran,
Honglak Lee,
and
Dragomir R. Radev. 2016. Sentence ordering using
recurrent neural networks. CoRR abs/1611.02654.

Andrew M. Dai and Quoc V. Le. 2015. Semisupervised sequence learning. In NIPS 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Tomas Mikolov, Martin Karafiát, Lukás Burget, Jan
Cernocký, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2010. Recurrent neural network based language model. In INTERSPEECH 2010, Makuhari, Chiba, Japan.

Bill Dolan, Chris Quirk, and Chris Brockett. 2004.
Unsupervised construction of large paraphrase corpora: Exploiting massively parallel news sources. In
COLING 2004, Geneva, Switzerland.

Eleni Miltsakaki, Rashmi Prasad, Aravind K. Joshi,
and Bonnie L. Webber. 2004. The penn discourse
treebank. In LREC 2004, Lisbon, Portugal.

John C. Duchi, Elad Hazan, and Yoram Singer. 2011.
Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning
and stochastic optimization. Journal of Machine
Learning Research 12.

Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In ACL 2004,
Barcelona, Spain.. pages 271–278.

Zhe Gan, Yunchen Pu, Ricardo Henao, Chunyuan Li,
Xiaodong He, and Lawrence Carin. 2016. Unsupervised learning of sentence representations using convolutional neural networks. CoRR abs/1611.07897.

Prajit Ramachandran, Peter J. Liu, and Quoc V. Le.
2016. Unsupervised pretraining for sequence to sequence learning. CoRR abs/1611.02683.

Felix Hill, Kyunghyun Cho, and Anna Korhonen. 2016.
Learning distributed representations of sentences
from unlabelled data. In NAACL 2016, San Diego,
California, USA.
Jerry R. Hobbs. 1979. Coherence and coreference.
Cognitive Science 3.
Yangfeng Ji, Trevor Cohn, Lingpeng Kong, Chris Dyer,
and Jacob Eisenstein. 2015. Document context language models. CoRR abs/1511.03962.
Yangfeng Ji, Gholamreza Haffari, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2016. A latent variable recurrent neural network for discourse relation language models. CoRR
abs/1603.01913.
Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, and
Tomas Mikolov. 2016. Bag of tricks for efficient text
classification. CoRR abs/1607.01759.
Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for
sentence classification. In EMNLP 2014, Doha,
Qatar.
Yoon Kim, Yacine Jernite, David Sontag, and Alexander M. Rush. 2016. Character-aware neural language models. In AAAI 2016, Phoenix, Arizona,
USA.

Alexander M. Rush, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston.
2015. A neural attention model for abstractive sentence summarization. In EMNLP 2015, Lisbon, Portugal.
Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Y Wu, Jason
Chuang, Christopher D Manning, Andrew Y Ng,
Christopher Potts, et al. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment
treebank. In EMNLP 2013, Seattle, Washington,
USA.
Rupesh Kumar Srivastava, Klaus Greff, and Jürgen
Schmidhuber. 2015. Highway networks. CoRR
abs/1505.00387.
Bryan Stroube. 2003. Literary freedom: project gutenberg. ACM Crossroads 10.
Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014.
Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In NIPS 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ellen M. Voorhees. 2001. Overview of the TREC 2001
question answering track. In TREC 2001, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Tian Wang and Kyunghyun Cho. 2016. Larger-context
language modelling with recurrent neural network.
In ACL 2016, Berlin, Germany.

Zichao Yang, Diyi Yang, Chris Dyer, Xiaodong He,
Alexander J. Smola, and Eduard H. Hovy. 2016. Hierarchical attention networks for document classification. In NAACL 2016, San Diego, California,
USA.
Xiang Zhang, Junbo Jake Zhao, and Yann LeCun.
2015. Character-level convolutional networks for
text classification. In NIPS 2015, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
Yukun Zhu, Ryan Kiros, Richard S. Zemel, Ruslan
Salakhutdinov, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba,
and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Aligning books and movies:
Towards story-like visual explanations by watching
movies and reading books. In ICCV 2015, Santiago,
Chile.

Supplement to:
Discourse-Based Objectives for Fast Unsupervised Sentence Representation Learning
Table 7 lists the conjunction phrases and groupings used. Table 8 (next page) shows the Euclidean nearest
neighbors of a sample of sentences in our representation space.
addition
again
furthermore
also
moreover
besides
in addition
finally
further
result
accordingly
consequently
hence
thus
therefore

specific
namely
specifically
notably
that is
for example

contrast
anyway
contrarily
however
conversely
instead
nonetheless
nevertheless
in contrast
otherwise
rather
compare
likewise
similarly

strengthen
indeed
in fact

Table 7: Grouping of conjunctions.

time
meanwhile
next
then
now
thereafter
return
still
recognize
undoubtedly
certainly

His main influences are Al Di, Jimi Hendrix, Tony, JJ Cale, Malmsteen and Paul Gilbert.
The album features guest appearances from Kendrick Lamar, Schoolboy Q, 2 Chainz, Drake, Big.
The production had original live rock, blues, jazz, punk, and music composed and arranged by Steve and Diane Gioia.
There are 6 real drivers in the game: Gilles, Richard Burns, Carlos Sainz, Philippe, Piero, and Tommi.
Other rappers that did include Young Jeezy, Lil Wayne, Freddie Gibbs, Emilio Rojas, German rapper and Romeo Miller.
Grant laughed and complied with the suggestion.
Pauline stood for a moment in complete bewilderment.
Her eyes narrowed on him, considering.
Helena felt her face turn red hot.
Her face remained expressionless as dough.
Items can be selected specifically to represent characteristics that are not as well represented in natural language.
Cache manifests can also use relative paths or even absolute urls as shown below.
Locales can be used to translate into different languages, or variations of text, which are replaced by reference.
Nouns can only be inflected for the possessive, in which case a prefix is added.
Ratios are commonly used to compare banks, because most assets and liabilities of banks are constantly valued at market values.
A group of generals thus created a secret organization, the united officers’ group, in order to oust Castillo from power.
The home in Massachusetts is controlled by a private society organized for the purpose, with a board of fifteen trustees in charge.
A group of ten trusted servants men from the family were assigned to search the eastern area of the island in the area.
The city is divided into 144 administrative wards that are grouped into 15 boroughs. each of these wards elects a councillor.
From 1993 to 1994 she served as US ambassador to the United Nations commission on the status of women.
As a result of this performance, Morelli’s play had become a polarizing issue amongst Nittany Lion fans.
In the end, Molly was deemed to have more potential, eliminating Jaclyn despite having a stellar portfolio.
As a result of the Elway connection, Erickson spent time that year learning about the offense with Jack.
As a result of the severe response of the czarist authorities to this insurrection, had to leave Poland.
Another unwelcome note is struck by the needlessly aggressive board on the museum which has already been mentioned.
Zayd Ibn reported , “we used to record the Quran from parchments in the presence of the messenger of god.”
Daniel Pipes says that “primarily through “the protocols of the Elders of Zion”, the whites spread these charges to [. . . ]”
Sam wrote in “” (1971) that Howard’s fiction was “a kind of wild West in the lands of unbridled fantasy.”
said , the chancellor “elaborately fought for an European solution” in the refugee crisis, but this was “out of sight”.
Robert , writing for “The New York Post”, states that, “in Mellie , the show has its most character [. . . ]”
Many “Crimean Goths” were Greek speakers and many Byzantine citizens were settled in the region called [. . . ]
The personal name of “Andes”, popular among the Illyrians of southern Pannonia and much of Northern Dalmatia [. . . ]
is identified by the Chicano as the first settlement of the people in North America before their Southern migration [. . . ]
The range of “H.” stretches across the Northern and Western North America as well as across Europe [. . . ]
The name “Dauphin river” actually refers to two closely tied communities; bay and some members of Dauphin river first nation.
She smiled and he smiled in return.
He shook his head and smiled broadly.
He laughed and shook his head.
He gazed at her in amazement.
She sighed and shook her head at her foolishness.
The jury returned a verdict of not in the Floyd cox case, in which he was released immediately.
The match lasted only 1 minute and 5 seconds, and was the second quickest bout of the division.
His results qualified him for the Grand Prix final, in which he placed 6th overall.
The judge stated that the prosecution had until march 1, 2012, to file charges.
In November, he reached the final of the Ruhr Open, but lost 42̆0130 against Murphy.
Here was at least a slight reprieve.
The monsters seemed to be frozen in time.
This had an impact on him.
That was all the sign he needed.
So this was disturbing as hell.

Table 8: Nearest neighbor examples

