Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 71 references

Joint Modeling of Entities and Discourse Relations for Coherence Assessment

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that coherence assessment improves when entity continuity and discourse relations are modeled jointly, and demonstrates it with two methods across three benchmarks.

desk verdict A solid, well-scoped empirical study on combining entity and discourse features for coherence scoring, but the headline 'significantly' is not backed by significance tests and the authors' own related ACL 2025 model is missing from the comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04182 v1 pith:YQNRCPQG submitted 2025-09-04 cs.CL

Wei Liu , Michael Strube This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords coherenceassessmentdiscourserelationsentitygridfusiontransformerlargelanguagemodelsprompt-basedevaluationPDTBcross-domaingeneralization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Coherence—what makes a text hang together—is usually modeled with only one kind of linguistic clue: either how entities recur across sentences or how discourse relations (cause, contrast, instantiation, etc.) link them. This paper argues that the two cue types are complementary and that assessing coherence with both at once works better than either alone. It proposes two ways to do this: a fusion Transformer that reads a flat sequence of sentences, entities, and discourse relations with position-aware attention, and a prompt method that feeds LLMs the connections between sentences as natural-language triples. Across three benchmarks, the joint models outperform text-only and single-cue baselines, and the gains show up especially on low-coherence texts and in cross-domain transfer.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a graph of sentences linked by two edge types—'entity' edges (shared nouns or coreference) and discourse-relation edges such as cause, contrast, and instantiation—which is then flattened for Transformer input. Each element gets a two-dimensional position encoding (start and end positions in the sentence sequence), and attention is modulated by a visible matrix so sentences can only attend to entities and relations that linguistically involve them. For the prompt method, the same graph is linearized into left-to-right triples (s_i, r, s_j) that preserve both order and connection information.

What would settle it

Construct a test set of coherent texts whose key discourse relation spans non-adjacent sentences (e.g., sentence 1 states a claim and sentence 4 gives the reason, with no adjacent relation conveying it) and check whether adding the adjacent-only relation triples still improves over text-only baselines. If it does not, the adjacent-sentence restriction is the limiting factor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that integrating entity continuity and discourse-relation structure improves automated coherence assessment. It supports this with two models: Method I builds a flat sequence containing sentences, their entities, and the discourse relations between sentences, then applies a fusion Transformer whose position-aware attention sees each element's start and end position in the text and whose visible matrix restricts attention to linguistically plausible connections. Method II rewrites the same graph as ordered triples—(s_i, entity, s_j), (s_i, reason, s_j), etc.—and prompts a large language model to judge coherence from the sentences plus the triples. On GCDC, CoheSen

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that discourse relations between adjacent sentences capture enough of the discourse structure needed for coherence; if coherence depends substantially on relations between non-adjacent sentences, the model's discourse features are incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If this holds, coherence scorers that combine entity tracking with discourse parsers will systematically beat single-cue systems on benchmark suites.
  • The label-bias analysis implies these joint features make coherence models safer for real-world, imbalanced text collections where most documents cluster in one or two score bands.
  • The zero-shot prompt gains suggest that explicit entity and relation triples can inject structural linguistic knowledge into LLM evaluation without any training.
  • Cross-domain transfer results imply that entity and discourse cues are domain-agnostic coherence signals, useful when training and test genres differ.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper restricts discourse relations to adjacent sentences; a natural extension would be to include long-range relations (e.g., between sentence 1 and sentence 4), which could either strengthen the joint model or reveal where the parser is the bottleneck.
  • The triple-based prompt format is a generalizable trick: the same linearization could be tested for other structural judgments such as factual consistency, readability, or narrative flow, where linguistic relations matter.
  • The fusion Transformer's 2D-position-aware attention with a visible matrix may transfer to other graph-structured text tasks where order plus connection structure must both be respected.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. Liu and Strube propose two methods for jointly modeling entity-based and discourse relation-based coherence: a fusion Transformer that operates on a flat sequence of sentences, entities, and discourse relations with position-aware attention and a visible matrix, and a prompting method that serializes the entity/relation graph into triples and feeds them to Llama in zero-shot or LoRA fine-tuned settings. The methods are evaluated on GCDC, CoheSentia, and TOEFL against TextOnly, TextEnty, and TextRel ablations and prior SOTA systems, with additional analyses including macro-F1, per-label accuracy, cross-domain transfer, and case studies. The central claim is that integrating both feature types significantly improves coherence assessment.

Significance. If supported, the paper would provide a useful demonstration that entity and discourse-relation cues are complementary for coherence modeling, and it offers two practical architectures for combining them. Strengths include the breadth of evaluation (three benchmarks, two encoders, zero-shot and fine-tuned LLMs), the inclusion of macro-F1 and cross-domain experiments, and the release of code. However, the headline improvements are modest (often 1-2 accuracy points) and are not backed by statistical significance tests, so the central empirical claim is currently only suggestive. The omission of the authors' own closely related ACL 2025 work from the baselines further weakens the claim of outperforming strong baselines.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.1; Tables 1-2] The claim that joint modeling 'significantly enhances' performance is not supported by any statistical test. For example, Table 1 (GCDC, Fusion RoBERTa) shows Method I at 63.24 vs. TextRel 62.48 and TextEnty 61.83, with standard deviations of 1.6-2.0; Table 2 (TOEFL, fine-tuned Prompt) shows Method II at 78.39 vs. TextRel 77.63 and TextEnty 77.70, with stds around 1.5. These differences are within one standard deviation. Because the central claim rests on these comparisons, the authors should report paired significance tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or bootstrap over the cross-validation folds) or confidence intervals for the key contrasts, and adjust the wording in the Abstract, Section 1, and Section 4.1 accordingly.
  2. [Section 2 (Related Work); Section 4 (Baselines)] Liu and Strube (2025), a discourse relation-enhanced neural coherence model, is cited in the references and Appendix B.2 but is omitted from Related Work and is not included as a baseline. This work is directly relevant and appears to be the closest prior model; its omission makes the 'strong baselines' claim incomplete. The authors should discuss this work in Related Work and, if possible, compare against it or justify why a direct comparison is not feasible.
  3. [Appendix A] The discourse parser extracts relations only between adjacent sentences ('we focus on identifying both explicit and implicit discourse relations between adjacent sentences'). This restricts the method to local discourse relations; long-range discourse relations (e.g., between sentence 1 and sentence 4) are not captured. While this limitation applies equally to all compared models and thus does not invalidate the internal comparisons, it limits the generalizability of the claim that discourse relations contribute to coherence assessment. The manuscript should acknowledge this restriction explicitly in the Limitations section and discuss its potential impact.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Tables 1, 2, 7, 8] Standard deviations are displayed as concatenated numbers (e.g., '67.600.5'), which is hard to read. Use an explicit plus/minus sign or parenthetical error bars.
  2. [Section 6 (Conclusions)] The Conclusions repeat the 'significantly outperform' claim without qualification. If significance tests cannot be provided, the claims should be softened to 'numerically improve' or 'consistently improve'.
  3. [Section 4 (CoheSentia preprocessing)] The grouping of CoheSentia scores (1-2 as low, 3-4 as medium, 5 as high) is a preprocessing choice that could affect results. It is not mentioned in the Limitations or as a potential free parameter. A brief note on its robustness would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the joint entity/discourse-relation features are extracted independently of coherence labels, and the cited self-work is used as tools or baselines, not as the source of the claimed improvement.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical one: combining entity features and discourse-relation features improves coherence assessment on human-annotated benchmarks. The entity features come from Stanza, an external NLP toolkit, and the discourse-relation features come from a PDTB parser, discopy, augmented with the authors' Liu and Strube (2023) implicit-relation classifier. That classifier is trained on PDTB relation labels, not on coherence ratings, and its accuracy (67.80% on implicit relations) is reported in Appendix A, so it is externally falsifiable and does not embed the target coherence result. The baselines TextEnty and TextRel are ablations of the proposed graph representation, so the comparison isolates the contribution of each feature type rather than presupposing the conclusion. Self-citations occur — Liu and Strube (2023) for implicit relation classification, Liu and Strube (2025) for the average-pooling choice, and Liu et al. (2023b) as a prior baseline and for the left-to-right triple ordering — but none is load-bearing in a circular way: the pooling preference is a design choice, the prior coherence model is a comparison point, and the reading-order constraint is a conventional preference. The paper does not define coherence in terms of its extracted features, does not fit a parameter to the test labels, and does not invoke a uniqueness theorem to force its architecture. Concerns about the word 'significantly' lacking a paired significance test are statistical-evidence concerns, not circularity. No step in the derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical systems contribution, not a derivation. It introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Its claims rest on standard NLP tooling (Stanza, discopy, PDTB) and benchmark annotations.

free parameters (1)
  • CoheSentia label grouping thresholds = low: 1-2, medium: 3-4, high: 5
    Hand-chosen grouping of the 1-5 annotated scores into three classes to mitigate the imbalanced distribution (Section 4, Datasets). This is an ad hoc choice that affects the evaluation, though not the model architecture.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption PDTB 3.0 discourse relation taxonomy adequately captures discourse relations relevant to coherence.
    The parser and relation labels are based on PDTB 3.0 (Appendix A); if this taxonomy misses coherence-critical relations, the discourse features are incomplete.
  • domain assumption The human-annotated coherence labels in GCDC, CoheSentia, and TOEFL are reliable ground truth.
    All training and evaluation depend on these labels; any label noise propagates to the reported accuracies.
  • domain assumption Stanza's noun identification and coreference resolution are accurate enough for entity-based features.
    Entity nodes and entity edges are extracted via Stanza (Section 3); parsing errors would distort the entity graph.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint Modeling of Entities and Discourse Relations for Coherence Assessment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQNRCPQG

@misc{pith2026250904182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint Modeling of Entities and Discourse Relations for Coherence Assessment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQNRCPQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04182}
}
read the original abstract

In linguistics, coherence can be achieved by different means, such as by maintaining reference to the same set of entities across sentences and by establishing discourse relations between them. However, most existing work on coherence modeling focuses exclusively on either entity features or discourse relation features, with little attention given to combining the two. In this study, we explore two methods for jointly modeling entities and discourse relations for coherence assessment. Experiments on three benchmark datasets show that integrating both types of features significantly enhances the performance of coherence models, highlighting the benefits of modeling both simultaneously for coherence evaluation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04182 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of a coherent text, whose coher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sentences (in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Illustration of our second approach. We use natural language to describe the relationships between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two examples (truncated) showing how entities and discourse relations aid coherence assessment. Both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of TextOnly baseline in the Prompt setting. We instruct LLMs to consider only textual content [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Prompt with explanation. C Macro-F1 Results As noted in Section 5, the labels in the GCDC, CoheSentia, and TOEFL corpora are imbalanced. While accuracy is commonly used as the evaluation metric for coherence assessment (Lai and Tetreault, 2018; Jeon and Strube, 2020) a…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Tushar Abhishek, Daksh Rawat, Manish Gupta, and Vasudeva Varma. 2021. Transformer models for text coherence assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.02176

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Regina Barzilay and Mirella Lapata. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2008.34.1.1 Modeling local coherence: An entity-based approach . Computational Linguistics, 34(1):1--34

    doi:10.1162/coli.2008.34.1.1 2008

  5. [5]

    Anne Beyer, Sharid Lo \'a iciga, and David Schlangen. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.328 Is incoherence surprising? targeted evaluation of coherence prediction from language models . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 41...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.328 2021

  6. [6]

    Daniel Blanchard, Joel Tetreault, Derrick Higgins, Aoife Cahill, and Martin Chodorow. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2013.tb02331.x Toefl11: A corpus of non-native english . ETS Research Report Series, 2013(2):i--15

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Jill Burstein, Joel Tetreault, and Slava Andreyev. 2010. https://aclanthology.org/N10-1099/ Using entity-based features to model coherence in student essays . In Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 681--684, Los Angeles, California. Association for ...

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Snigdha Chaturvedi, Haoruo Peng, and Dan Roth. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D17-1168 Story comprehension for predicting what happens next . In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1603--1614, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1168 2017

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Herbert H. Clark. 1975. https://aclanthology.org/T75-2034/ Bridging . In Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing

    1975

  2. [10]

    Zihang Dai, Zhilin Yang, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Quoc Le, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1285 Transformer- XL : Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com...

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Rohan Taori, Tianyi Zhang, Ishaan Gulrajani, Jimmy Ba, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=4hturzLcKX Alpacafarm: A simulation framework for methods that learn from human feedback . In Thirty-sev...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Micha Elsner and Eugene Charniak. 2011. https://aclanthology.org/P11-2022/ Extending the entity grid with entity-specific features . In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 125--129, Portlan...

    2011

  5. [13]

    Vanessa Wei Feng, Ziheng Lin, and Graeme Hirst. 2014. https://aclanthology.org/C14-1089/ The impact of deep hierarchical discourse structures in the evaluation of text coherence . In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Te...

    2014

  6. [14]

    Katja Filippova and Michael Strube. 2007. https://aclanthology.org/W07-2321/ Extending the entity-grid coherence model to semantically related entities . In Proceedings of the Eleventh E uropean Workshop on Natural Language Generation ( ENLG 07) , pages 139--142, Saarbr \"u ck...

    2007

  7. [15]

    Xiyan Fu and Anette Frank. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.252 SETI : Systematicity evaluation of textual inference . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 4101--4114, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Li...

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Xiyan Fu and Anette Frank. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.starsem-1.31 Compositional structured explanation generation with dynamic modularized reasoning . In Proceedings of the 13th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2024), pages 385--401...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Xiyan Fu and Anette Frank. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00680 Exploring continual learning of compositional generalization in NLI . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:912--932

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Art...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Grosz, Aravind K

    Barbara J. Grosz, Aravind K. Joshi, and Scott Weinstein. 1995. https://aclanthology.org/J95-2003/ C entering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse . Computational Linguistics, 21(2):203--225

    1995

  12. [20]

    Jian Guan, Zhenyu Yang, Rongsheng Zhang, Zhipeng Hu, and Minlie Huang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v37i11.26509 Generating coherent narratives by learning dynamic and discrete entity states with a contrastive framework . In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artifici...

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Camille Guinaudeau and Michael Strube. 2013. https://aclanthology.org/P13-1010/ Graph-based local coherence modeling . In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 93--103, Sofia, Bulgaria. Associatio...

    2013

  14. [22]

    Yufang Hou, Katja Markert, and Michael Strube. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00315 Unrestricted bridging resolution . Computational Linguistics, 44(2):237--284

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Sungho Jeon and Michael Strube. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.604 Centering-based neural coherence modeling with hierarchical discourse segments . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7458-...

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Sungho Jeon and Michael Strube. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.537 Entity-based neural local coherence modeling . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7787--7805, Dublin, Irel...

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Yangfeng Ji and Jacob Eisenstein. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00142 One vector is not enough: Entity-augmented distributed semantics for discourse relations . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:329--344

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    Shafiq Joty, Muhammad Tasnim Mohiuddin, and Dat Tien Nguyen. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-1052 Coherence modeling of asynchronous conversations: A neural entity grid approach . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics ...

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    Daniel Jurafsky and James H. Martin. 2025. https://web.stanford.edu/ jurafsky/slp3/ Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition with Language Models , 3rd edition. Online manuscript released ...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Andrew Kehler, Laura Kertz, Hannah Rohde, and Jeffrey L. Elman. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1093/JOS/FFM018 Coherence and coreference revisited . J. Semant., 25(1):1--44

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    Ren \'e Knaebel. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.codi-main.12 discopy: A neural system for shallow discourse parsing . In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Approaches to Discourse, pages 128--133, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic and Online. Association for...

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Philippe Laban, Luke Dai, Lucas Bandarkar, and Marti A. Hearst. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-short.134 Can transformer models measure coherence in text: Re-thinking the shuffle test . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational ...

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Alice Lai and Joel Tetreault. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5023 Discourse coherence in the wild: A dataset, evaluation and methods . In Proceedings of the 19th Annual SIG dial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue , pages 214--223, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Co...

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Mirella Lapata. 2003. https://doi.org/10.3115/1075096.1075165 Probabilistic text structuring: Experiments with sentence ordering . In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 545--552, Sapporo, Japan. Association for Comput...

    2003

  25. [33]

    Mirella Lapata and Regina Barzilay. 2005. Automatic evaluation of text coherence: models and representations. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI'05, page 1085–1090, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc

    2005

  26. [34]

    Raymond Li, Felipe Gonzalez-Pizarro, Linzi Xing, Gabriel Murray, and Giuseppe Carenini. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.145 Diversity-aware coherence loss for improving neural topic models . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Comp...

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Ziheng Lin, Hwee Tou Ng, and Min-Yen Kan. 2011. https://aclanthology.org/P11-1100/ Automatically evaluating text coherence using discourse relations . In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages...

    2011

  28. [36]

    Wei Liu, Yi Fan, and Michael Strube. 2023 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.disrpt-1.4 HITS at DISRPT 2023: Discourse segmentation, connective detection, and relation classification . In Proceedings of the 3rd Shared Task on Discourse Relation Parsing and Treebanking (DISRP...

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Wei Liu, Xiyan Fu, and Michael Strube. 2023 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.431 Modeling structural similarities between documents for coherence assessment with graph convolutional networks . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Comput...

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Wei Liu, Xiyan Fu, Yue Zhang, and Wenming Xiao. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.454 Lexicon enhanced C hinese sequence labeling using BERT adapter . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th Internat...

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Wei Liu and Michael Strube. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.874 Annotation-inspired implicit discourse relation classification with auxiliary discourse connective generation . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Wei Liu and Michael Strube. 2025. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.236 Discourse relation-enhanced neural coherence modeling . In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4748--4762, Vienna,...

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Wei Liu, Stephen Wan, and Michael Strube. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.150 What causes the failure of explicit to implicit discourse relation recognition? In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computatio...

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Wei Liu, Tongge Xu, Qinghua Xu, Jiayu Song, and Yueran Zu. 2019 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1247 An encoding strategy based word-character LSTM for C hinese NER . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational ...

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11692 RoBERTa : A robustly optimized BERT P retraining A pproach . CoRR, abs/1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Aviya Maimon and Reut Tsarfaty. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.324 COHESENTIA : A novel benchmark of incremental versus holistic assessment of coherence in generated texts . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proce...

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Mann and Sandra A

    William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243 Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization . Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8(3):243--281

    1988 doi

  38. [46]

    Watheq Ahmad Mansour, Salam Albatarni, Sohaila Eltanbouly, and Tamer Elsayed. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.247/ Can large language models automatically score proficiency of written essays? In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computatio...

    2024

  39. [47]

    John Mendonca, Isabel Trancoso, and Alon Lavie. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.sigdial-1.44 EC oh: Turn-level coherence evaluation for multilingual dialogues . In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 516-...

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Mohsen Mesgar and Michael Strube. 2015. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S15-1036 Graph-based coherence modeling for assessing readability . In Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 309--318, Denver, Colorado. Association for Compu...

    2015 doi

  41. [49]

    Mohsen Mesgar and Michael Strube. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N16-1167 Lexical coherence graph modeling using word embeddings . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technolog...

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    Hedderich, and Dietrich Klakow

    Marius Mosbach, Anna Khokhlova, Michael A. Hedderich, and Dietrich Klakow. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.blackboxnlp-1.7 On the interplay between fine-tuning and sentence-level probing for linguistic knowledge in pre-trained transformers . In Proceedings of the Third ...

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    Ben Naismith, Phoebe Mulcaire, and Jill Burstein. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.bea-1.32 Automated evaluation of written discourse coherence using GPT -4 . In Proceedings of the 18th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (BEA 2023), p...

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Juri Opitz and Sebastian Burst. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.03347 Macro F1 and macro F1 . CoRR, abs/1911.03347

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Rossi, and Trung Bui

    Mihir Parmar, Hanieh Deilamsalehy, Franck Dernoncourt, Seunghyun Yoon, Ryan A. Rossi, and Trung Bui. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.1106 Towards enhancing coherence in extractive summarization: Dataset and experiments with LLM s . In Proceedings of the 2024 ...

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1162 G lo V e: Global vectors for word representation . In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing ( EMNLP ) , pages 1532--1543, Doh...

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    Rashmi Prasad, Nikhil Dinesh, Alan Lee, Eleni Miltsakaki, Livio Robaldo, Aravind Joshi, and Bonnie Webber. 2008. https://aclanthology.org/L08-1093/ The P enn D iscourse T ree B ank 2.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (...

    2008

  48. [56]

    Ellen F. Prince. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole, editor, Radical Pragmatics, pages 223--255. Academic Press, New York

    1981

  49. [57]

    Peng Qi, Yuhao Zhang, Yuhui Zhang, Jason Bolton, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-demos.14 S tanza: A python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Co...

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    Tanya Reinhart. 1980. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1771893 Conditions for text coherence . Poetics Today, 1(4):161--180

    1980

  51. [59]

    Hannah Rohde, Alexander Johnson, Nathan Schneider, and Bonnie Webber. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-1210 Discourse coherence: Concurrent explicit and implicit relations . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume...

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    Suzanna Sia and Kevin Duh. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.mtsummit-research.15/ In-context learning as maintaining coherency: A study of on-the-fly machine translation using large language models . In Proceedings of Machine Translation Summit XIX, Vol. 1: Research Track, ...

    2023

  53. [61]

    Kaveh Taghipour and Hwee Tou Ng. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D16-1193 A neural approach to automated essay scoring . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1882--1891, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational ...

    2016 doi

  54. [62]

    Dat Tien Nguyen and Shafiq Joty. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1121 A neural local coherence model . In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1320--1330, Vancouver, Canada. Association for...

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Paper.pdf Attention is all you need . In Advances in Ne...

    2017

  56. [64]

    Bruno, Hillary R

    Xinhao Wang, Binod Gyawali, James V. Bruno, Hillary R. Molloy, Keelan Evanini, and Klaus Zechner. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-2719 Using R hetorical S tructure T heory to assess discourse coherence for non-native spontaneous speech . In Proceedings of the Workshop on...

    2019 doi

  57. [65]

    Bonnie Webber, Rashmi Prasad, Alan Lee, and Aravind Joshi. 2019. The P enn D iscourse T ree B ank 3.0 annotation manual. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, 35:108

    2019

  58. [66]

    Hongyi Wu, Xinshu Shen, Man Lan, Shaoguang Mao, Xiaopeng Bai, and Yuanbin Wu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.412 A multi-task dataset for assessing discourse coherence in C hinese essays: Structure, theme, and logic analysis . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conf...

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    Zonghan Wu, Shirui Pan, Fengwen Chen, Guodong Long, Chengqi Zhang, and Philip S. Yu. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2020.2978386 A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks . IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 32(1):4--24

    2021

  60. [68]

    Wen Xiao, Patrick Huber, and Giuseppe Carenini. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.326 Predicting discourse trees from transformer-based neural summarizers . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational...

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    Ruosong Ye, Caiqi Zhang, Runhui Wang, Shuyuan Xu, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-eacl.132/ Language is all a graph needs . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024, pages 1955--1973, St. Julian ' s, Malta. Associ...

    2024

  62. [70]

    Wei Zhao, Michael Strube, and Steffen Eger. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.278 D isco S core: Evaluating text generation with BERT and discourse coherence . In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin...

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    Yaowei Zheng, Richong Zhang, Junhao Zhang, Yanhan Ye, and Zheyan Luo. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-demos.38 L lama F actory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.