As large language models become increasingly capable at various writing tasks, their weakness at generating unique and creative content becomes a major liability. Although LLMs have the ability to generate text covering diverse topics, there is an overall sense of repetitiveness across texts that we aim to formalize and quantify via a similarity metric. The familiarity between documents arises from the persistence of underlying discourse structures. However, existing similarity metrics dependent on lexical overlap and syntactic patterns largely capture $\textit{content}$ overlap, thus making them unsuitable for detecting $\textit{structural}$ similarities. We introduce an abstraction based on linguistic theories in Questions Under Discussion (QUD) and question semantics to help quantify differences in discourse progression. We then use this framework to build $\textbf{QUDsim}$, a similarity metric that can detect discursive parallels between documents. Using QUDsim, we find that LLMs often reuse discourse structures (more so than humans) across samples, even when content differs. Furthermore, LLMs are not only repetitive and structurally uniform, but are also divergent from human authors in the types of structures they use.

Question Under Discussion (QUD), which is originally a linguistic analytic framework, gains increasing attention in the community of natural language processing over the years. Various models have been proposed for implementing QUD for discourse processing. This survey summarizes these models, with a focus on application to written texts, and examines studies that explore the relationship between QUD and mainstream discourse frameworks, including RST, PDTB and SDRT. Some questions that may require further study are suggested.

This study investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019), engage in pragmatic inference of scalar implicature, such as some. Two sets of experiments were conducted using cosine similarity and next sentence/token prediction as experimental methods. The results in experiment 1 showed that, both models interpret some as pragmatic implicature not all in the absence of context, aligning with human language processing. In experiment 2, in which Question Under Discussion (QUD) was presented as a contextual cue, BERT showed consistent performance regardless of types of QUDs, while GPT-2 encountered processing difficulties since a certain type of QUD required pragmatic inference for implicature. The findings revealed that, in terms of theoretical approaches, BERT inherently incorporates pragmatic implicature not all within the term some, adhering to Default model (Levinson, 2000). In contrast, GPT-2 seems to encounter processing difficulties in inferring pragmatic implicature within context, consistent with Context-driven model (Sperber and Wilson, 2002).

Question Under Discussion (QUD) is a discourse framework that uses implicit questions to reveal discourse relationships between sentences. In QUD parsing, each sentence is viewed as an answer to a question triggered by an anchor sentence in prior context. The resulting QUD structure is required to conform to several theoretical criteria like answer compatibility (how well the question is answered), making QUD parsing a challenging task. Previous works construct QUD parsers in a pipelined manner (i.e. detect the trigger sentence in context and then generate the question). However, these parsers lack a holistic view of the task and can hardly satisfy all the criteria. In this work, we introduce QUDSELECT, a joint-training framework that selectively decodes the QUD dependency structures considering the QUD criteria. Using instruction-tuning, we train models to simultaneously predict the anchor sentence and generate the associated question. To explicitly incorporate the criteria, we adopt a selective decoding strategy of sampling multiple QUD candidates during inference, followed by selecting the best one with criteria scorers. Our method outperforms the state-of-the-art baseline models by 9% in human evaluation and 4% in automatic evaluation, demonstrating the effectiveness of our framework.

Inquisitive questions -- open-ended, curiosity-driven questions people ask as they read -- are an integral part of discourse processing (Kehler and Rohde, 2017; Onea, 2016) and comprehension (Prince, 2004). Recent work in NLP has taken advantage of question generation capabilities of LLMs to enhance a wide range of applications. But the space of inquisitive questions is vast: many questions can be evoked from a given context. So which of those should be prioritized to find answers? Linguistic theories, unfortunately, have not yet provided an answer to this question. This paper presents QSALIENCE, a salience predictor of inquisitive questions. QSALIENCE is instruction-tuned over our dataset of linguist-annotated salience scores of 1,766 (context, question) pairs. A question scores high on salience if answering it would greatly enhance the understanding of the text (Van Rooy, 2003). We show that highly salient questions are empirically more likely to be answered in the same article, bridging potential questions (Onea, 2016) with Questions Under Discussion (Roberts, 2012). We further validate our findings by showing that answering salient questions is an indicator of summarization quality in news.

Automated text simplification, a technique useful for making text more accessible to people such as children and emergent bilinguals, is often thought of as a monolingual translation task from complex sentences to simplified sentences using encoder-decoder models. This view fails to account for elaborative simplification, where new information is added into the simplified text. This paper proposes to view elaborative simplification through the lens of the Question Under Discussion (QUD) framework, providing a robust way to investigate what writers elaborate upon, how they elaborate, and how elaborations fit into the discourse context by viewing elaborations as explicit answers to implicit questions. We introduce ElabQUD, consisting of 1.3K elaborations accompanied with implicit QUDs, to study these phenomena. We show that explicitly modeling QUD (via question generation) not only provides essential understanding of elaborative simplification and how the elaborations connect with the rest of the discourse, but also substantially improves the quality of elaboration generation.

Automatic discourse processing is bottlenecked by data: current discourse formalisms pose highly demanding annotation tasks involving large taxonomies of discourse relations, making them inaccessible to lay annotators. This work instead adopts the linguistic framework of Questions Under Discussion (QUD) for discourse analysis and seeks to derive QUD structures automatically. QUD views each sentence as an answer to a question triggered in prior context; thus, we characterize relationships between sentences as free-form questions, in contrast to exhaustive fine-grained taxonomies. We develop the first-of-its-kind QUD parser that derives a dependency structure of questions over full documents, trained using a large, crowdsourced question-answering dataset DCQA (Ko et al., 2022). Human evaluation results show that QUD dependency parsing is possible for language models trained with this crowdsourced, generalizable annotation scheme. We illustrate how our QUD structure is distinct from RST trees, and demonstrate the utility of QUD analysis in the context of document simplification. Our findings show that QUD parsing is an appealing alternative for automatic discourse processing.