The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CODRA: A Novel Discriminative Framework for Rhetorical Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Clauses and sentences rarely stand on their own in an actual discourse; rather, the relationship between them carries important information that allows the discourse to express a meaning as a whole beyond the sum of its individual parts. Rhetorical analysis seeks to uncover this coherence structure. In this article, we present CODRA— a COmplete probabilistic Discriminative framework for performing Rhetorical Analysis in accordance with Rhetorical Structure Theory, which posits a tree representation of a discourse. CODRA comprises a discourse segmenter and a discourse parser. First, the discourse segmenter, which is based on a binary classifier, identifies the elementary discourse units in a given text. Then the discourse parser builds a discourse tree by applying an optimal parsing algorithm to probabilities inferred from two Conditional Random Fields: one for intra-sentential parsing and the other for multi-sentential parsing. We present two approaches to combine these two stages of parsing effectively. By conducting a series of empirical evaluations over two different data sets, we demonstrate that CODRA significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art, often by a wide margin. We also show that a reranking of the k-best parse hypotheses generated by CODRA can potentially improve the accuracy even further.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank
Marcus, M. (1993) · doi:10.21236/ada273556 · Cited by 7,405
Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization
MANN, W. C., & THOMPSON, S. A. (1988) · Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse · doi:10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 · Cited by 3,853
Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis
Taboada, M., Brooke, J., Tofiloski, M., Voll, K., & Stede, M. (2011) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00049 · Cited by 3,301
Rhetorical Structure Theory: looking back and moving ahead
Taboada, M., & Mann, W. C. (2006) · Discourse Studies · doi:10.1177/1461445606061881 · Cited by 451
Cited by
Sentiment Analysis: An Overview from Linguistics
Taboada, M. (2016) · Annual Review of Linguistics · doi:10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040518 · Cited by 411
Text Segmentation by Cross Segment Attention
Lukasik, M., Dadachev, B., Papineni, K., & Simões, G. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.380 · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Joty, S., Carenini, G., & Ng, R. T.
- Venue
- Computational Linguistics
- Publisher
- MIT Press
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 385-435
- ISSN
- 0891-2017 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9312
- OpenAlex
- W1894075015
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 16.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: CODRA: A Novel Discriminative Framework for Rhetorical Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/coli_a_00226
- The paper
- Joty, S., Carenini, G., & Ng, R. T. (2015). CODRA: A Novel Discriminative Framework for Rhetorical Analysis. Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00226
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.