Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2009 / A Survey of Paraphrasing and Textual Entailment Methods

A Survey of Paraphrasing and Textual Entailment Methods

Summary

This JAIR survey (2010) brings together computational work on two closely related problems. Paraphrasing covers expressions that carry roughly the same information. Textual entailment covers pairs ⟨T, H⟩ where a reader who trusts T would most likely accept H as true. The authors treat paraphrase as entailment holding in both directions, which lets them describe both fields in one framework. The survey is organised by task type: recognition, generation and extraction.

Along the way it covers the main ideas in the field:

  • logic-based inference
  • vector space models and the distributional hypothesis
  • surface, syntactic and symbolic similarity measures
  • machine learning classifiers
  • decoding with transformation sequences
  • word and sentence alignment
  • pivot languages and bootstrapping
  • synchronous grammar rules

It also lists the resources each approach usually needs and points to datasets, tools and rule collections. The survey proposes no new system. Its value is that it maps the methods to applications such as QA, summarization, information extraction, generation and machine translation. This makes it a practical starting point for anyone building inference or meaning-equivalence components.

Key points

  • Entailment between templates (e.g., "X painted Y" vs. "Y is the work of X") can be one-directional when it must hold for every possible slot filler.
  • Judging a pair as a paraphrase or entailment depends on the chosen reading (e.g., the sense of "bank"). The authors suggest a lenient criterion: a pair counts as correct if some plausible reading makes it valid.
  • Benchmarks and corpora mentioned include:
    • the RTE challenges (PASCAL, later NIST TAC)
    • the MSR Paraphrase Corpus
    • FATE (RTE-2 with FrameNet annotations)
    • the Multiple-Translation Chinese Corpus
    • Cohn et al.'s word-aligned paraphrase corpus
    • the Written News Compression Corpus
  • Rule and lexical resources listed include DIRT, TEASE, Callison-Burch's pivot-based paraphrase rules, Zhao et al.'s POS-slotted rules, WordNet, Extended WordNet, FrameNet, VerbNet and Nomlex.
  • Table 4 pairs each family of methods with the resources it requires. For example, pivot methods need multilingual parallel corpora, while distributional methods need a large monolingual corpus.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. QA through entailment checking: replace the question word with each person-name entity found in a retrieved passage, then test which resulting statement the passage entails. This turns answer selection into a standard entailment classification problem.
  • I2. Entailed rewrites for unseen MT input: when a source phrase never appeared in training, swap it for a phrase it entails, then translate. Some meaning is lost, but the output may still beat a direct translation. The same trick could help any low-resource model facing rare constructions.
  • I3. Redundancy filtering in summarization: while extracting sentences, drop any candidate that paraphrases or is entailed by an already chosen sentence. This is a principled way to avoid repeating content in multi-document summaries.
  • I4. Compression as entailment generation: treat sentence compression as producing shorter, grammatical sentences entailed by the original, then rank the candidates by space saved and information kept.
  • I5. Expanding extraction patterns: grow information-extraction patterns automatically by adding paraphrases of a seed pattern, or patterns that entail it. This raises recall without hand-writing every variant.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages · Machine translation

Cited by

102 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 3 of them have a page here, 99 not yet.

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.1613/jair.2985 · arXiv 0912.3747

@article{androutsopoulos2009survey,
  title = {{A Survey of Paraphrasing and Textual Entailment Methods}},
  author = {Androutsopoulos, Ion and Malakasiotis, Prodromos},
  journal = {I. Androutsopoulos and P. Malakasiotis, "A Survey of Paraphrasing and Textual Entailment Methods". Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 38:135-187, 2010},
  year = {2009},
  doi = {10.1613/jair.2985},
  eprint = {0912.3747},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2985}
}

References

230 references, 30 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Alpaydin, E. (2004). Introduction to Machine Learning. MIT Press. find
  2. Androutsopoulos, I., Oberlander, J., & Karkaletsis, V. (2007). Source authoring for multilingual generation of personalised object descriptions. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 13(3), 191–233. ↗
  3. Androutsopoulos, I., Ritchie, G. D., & Thanisch, P. (1995). Natural language interfaces to databases – an introduction. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 1(1), 29–81. ↗
  4. Baeza-Yates, R., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern Information Retrieval. Addison Wesley. find
  5. Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. In Proc. of the 17th Int. Conf. on Comp. Linguistics, pp. 86–90, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. find our card
  6. Bannard, C., & Callison-Burch, C. (2005). Paraphrasing with bilingual parallel corpora. In Proc. of the 43rd Annual Meeting of ACL , pp. 597–604, Ann Arbor, MI . find our card
  7. Bar-Haim, R., Berant, J., & Dagan, I. (2009). A compact forest for scalable inference over entailment and paraphrase rules. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 1056–1065, Singapore. find
  8. Bar-Haim, R., Dagan, I., Dolan, B., Ferro, L., Giampiccolo, D., Magnini, B., & Szpektor, I. (2006). The 2nd PASCAL recognising textual entailment challenge. In Proc. of the 2nd PASCAL Challenges Workshop on Recognising Textual Entailment, Venice, Italy. find
  9. Bar-Haim, R., Dagan, I., Greental, I., & Shnarch, E. (2007). Semantic inference at the lexical-syntactic level. In Proc. of the 22nd Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 871–876, Vancouver, BC , Canada. find
  10. Barzilay, R., & Elhadad, N. (2003). Sentence alignment for monolingual comparable corpora. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 25–32, Sapporo, Japan. find
  11. Barzilay, R., & Lee, L. (2002). Bootstrapping lexical choice via multiple-sequence alignment. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 164–171, Philadelphia, PA . ↗
  12. Barzilay, R., & Lee, L. (2003). Learning to paraphrase: an unsupervised approach using multiple-sequence alignment. In Proc. of the HLT Conf. of NAACL , pp. 16–23, Edmonton, Canada. ↗ our card
  13. Barzilay, R., & McKeown, K. (2001). Extracting paraphrases from a parallel corpus. In Proc. of the 39th Annual Meeting of ACL , pp. 50–57, Toulouse, France. find our card
  14. Barzilay, R., & McKeown, K. R. (2005). Sentence fusion for multidocument news summarization. Comp. Linguistics, 31(3), 297–327. ↗
  15. Bateman, J., & Zock, M. (2003). Natural language generation. In Mitkov, R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comp. Linguistics, chap. 15, pp. 284–304. Oxford University Press. find
  16. Bensley, J., & Hickl, A. (2008). Workshop: Application of LCC ’s GROUNGHOG system for RTE -4. In Proc. of the Text Analysis Conference, Gaithersburg, MD . find
  17. Bergmair, R. (2009). A proposal on evaluation measures for RTE . In Proc. of the ACL Workshop on Applied Textual Inference, pp. 10–17, Singapore. find
  18. Berwick, R. C. (1991). Principles of principle-based parsing. In Berwick, R. C., Abney, S. P., & Tenny, C. (Eds.), Principle-Based Parsing: Computation and Psycholinguistics, pp. 1–37. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. ↗
  19. Bhagat, R., Pantel, P., & Hovy, E. (2007). LEDIR : An unsupervised algorithm for learning directionality of inference rules. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP and the Conf. on Computational Nat. Lang. Learning, pp. 161–170, Prague, Czech Republic. find
  20. Bhagat, R., & Ravichandran, D. (2008). Large scale acquisition of paraphrases for learning surface patterns. In Proc. of the 46th Annual Meeting of ACL : HLT , pp. 674–682, Columbus, OH . find
  21. Bikel, D. M., Schwartz, R. L., & Weischedel, R. M. (1999). An algorithm that learns what’s in a name. Machine Learning, 34(1-3), 211–231. ↗
  22. Blum, A., & Mitchell, T. (1998). Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. In Proc. of the 11th Annual Conf. on Computational Learning Theory, pp. 92–100, Madison, WI . ↗ our card
  23. Bos, J., & Markert, K. (2005). Recognising textual entailment with logical inference. In Proc. of the Conf. on HLT and EMNLP , pp. 628–635, Vancouver, BC , Canada. find our card
  24. Brill, E. (1992). A simple rule-based part of speech tagger. In Proc. of the 3rd Conf. on Applied Nat. Lang. Processing, pp. 152–155, Trento, Italy. find
  25. Brockett, C., & Dolan, W. (2005). Support Vector Machines for paraphrase identification and corpus construction. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Paraphrasing, pp. 1–8, Jeju island, Korea. find
  26. Brown, P. F., Della Pietra, S. A., Della Pietra, V. J., & Mercer, R. L. (1993). The mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation. Comp. Linguistics, 19(2), 263–311. find
  27. Budanitsky, A., & Hirst, G. (2006). Evaluating WordNet-based measures of lexical semantic relatedness. Comp. Linguistics, 32(1), 13–47. ↗ our card
  28. Burchardt, A., & Pennacchiotti, M. (2008). FATE : A FrameNet-annotated corpus for textual entailment. In Proc. of the 6th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Marrakech, Marocco. find our card
  29. Burchardt, A., Pennacchiotti, M., Thater, S., & Pinkal, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of frame semantics on textual entailment. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 15(4). ↗
  30. Burchardt, A., Reiter, N., Thater, S., & Frank, A. (2007). A semantic approach to textual entailment: System evaluation and task analysis. In Proc. of the ACL - PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, pp. 10–15, Prague, Czech Republic. ACL . find
  31. Califf, M., & Mooney, R. (2003). Bottom-up relational learning of pattern matching rules for information extraction. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 4, 177–210. find
  32. Callison-Burch, C. (2008). Syntactic constraints on paraphrases extracted from parallel corpora. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 196–205, Honolulu, HI . find our card
  33. Callison-Burch, C., Cohn, T., & Lapata, M. (2008). ParaMetric: An automatic evaluation metric for paraphrasing. In Proc. of the 22nd Int. Conf. on Comp. Linguistics, pp. 97–104, Manchester, UK . find
  34. Callison-Burch, C., Dagan, I., Manning, C., Pennacchiotti, M., & Zanzotto, F. M. (Eds.). (2009). Proc. of the ACL - IJCNLP Workshop on Applied Textual Inference. Singapore. find
  35. Callison-Burch, C., Koehn, P., & Osborne, M. (2006a). Improved statistical machine translation using paraphrases. In Proc. of the HLT Conf. of the NAACL , pp. 17–24, New York, NY . find
  36. Callison-Burch, C., Osborne, M., & Koehn, P. (2006b). Re-evaluating the role of BLEU in machine translation research. In Proc. of the 11th Conf. of EACL , pp. 249–256, Trento, Italy. find
  37. Carnap, R. (1952). Meaning postulates. Philosophical Studies, 3(5). find
  38. Charniak, E. (2000). A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proc. of the 1st Conf. of NAACL , pp. 132–139, Seattle, WA . find our card
  39. Chevelu, J., Lavergne, T., Lepage, Y., & Moudenc, T. (2009). Introduction of a new paraphrase generation tool based on Monte-Carlo sampling. In Proc. of the 47th Annual Meeting of ACL and the 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Nat. Lang. Processing of AFNLP , pp. 249–252, Singapore. find
  40. Clarke, D. (2009). Context-theoretic semantics for natural language: an overview. In Proc. of the EACL workshop on Geometrical Models of Nat. Lang. Semantics, pp. 112–119, Athens, Greece. find
  41. Clarke, J., & Lapata, M. (2008). Global inference for sentence compression: An integer linear programming approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research,, 31(1), 399–429. ↗
  42. Cohn, T., Callison-Burch, C., & Lapata, M. (2008). Constructing corpora for the development and evaluation of paraphrase systems. Comp. Linguistics, 34(4), 597–614. ↗ our card
  43. Cohn, T., & Lapata, M. (2008). Sentence compression beyond word deletion. In Proc. of the 22nd Int. Conf. on Comp. Linguistics, Manchester, UK . find
  44. Cohn, T., & Lapata, M. (2009). Sentence compression as tree transduction. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 34(1), 637–674. ↗
  45. Collins, M. (2003). Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. Comput. Linguistics, 29(4), 589–637. ↗ our card
  46. Corley, C., & Mihalcea, R. (2005). Measuring the semantic similarity of texts. In Proc. of the ACL Workshop on Empirical Modeling of Semantic Equivalence and Entailment, pp. 13–18, Ann Arbor, MI . find
  47. Cristianini, N., & Shawe-Taylor, J. (2000). An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-based Learning Methods. Cambridge University Press. ↗
  48. Culicover, P. (1968). Paraphrase generation and information retrieval from stored text. Mechanical Translation and Computational Linguistics, 11(1–2), 78–88. find
  49. Dagan, I., Dolan, B., Magnini, B., & Roth, D. (2009). Recognizing textual entailment: Rational, evaluation and approaches. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 15(4), i–xvii. Editorial of the special issue on Textual Entailment. ↗
  50. Dagan, I., Glickman, O., & Magnini, B. (2006). The PASCAL recognising textual entailment challenge. In Quiñonero-Candela, J., Dagan, I., Magnini, B., & d’Alche’ Buc, F. (Eds.), Machine Learning Challenges. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3944, pp. 177–190. Springer-Verlag. find
  51. Das, D., & Smith, N. A. (2009). Paraphrase identification as probabilistic quasi-synchronous recognition. In Proc. of the 47th Annual Meeting of ACL and the 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Nat. Lang. Processing of AFNLP , pp. 468–476, Singapore. find our card
  52. de Marneffe, M., Rafferty, A., & Manning, C. (2008). Finding contradictions in text. In Proc. of the 46th Annual Meeting of ACL : HLT , pp. 1039–1047, Columbus, OH . find
  53. Deléger, L., & Zweigenbaum, P. (2009). Extracting lay paraphrases of specialized expressions from monolingual comparable medical corpora. In Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on Building and Using Comparable Corpora: from Parallel to Non-parallel Corpora, pp. 2–10, Singapore. find
  54. Dolan, B., & Dagan, I. (Eds.). (2005). Proc. of the ACL workshop on Empirical Modeling of Semantic Equivalence and Entailment. Ann Arbor, MI . find
  55. Dolan, B., Quirk, C., & Brockett, C. (2004). Unsupervised construction of large paraphrase corpora: Eploiting massively parallel news sources. In Proc. of the 20th Int. Conf. on Comp. Linguistics, pp. 350–356, Geneva, Switzerland. find
  56. Dolan, W. B., & Brockett, C. (2005). Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Paraphrasing, pp. 9–16, Jeju island, Korea. find our card
  57. Dras, M. (1998). Search in constraint-based paraphrasing. In Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conf. on Natural Lang. Processing and Industrial Applications, pp. 213–219, Moncton, Canada. find
  58. Drass, M., & Yamamoto, K. (Eds.). (2005). Proc. of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Paraphrasing. Jeju island, Korea. find
  59. Duboue, P. A., & Chu-Carroll, J. (2006). Answering the question you wish they had asked: The impact of paraphrasing for question answering. In Proc. of the HLT Conf. of NAACL , pp. 33–36, New York, NY . find
  60. Duclaye, F., Yvon, F., & Collin, O. (2003). Learning paraphrases to improve a question-answering system. In Proc. of the EACL Workshop on Nat. Lang. Processing for Question Answering, pp. 35–41, Budapest, Hungary. find
  61. Durbin, R., Eddy, S., Krogh, A., & Mitchison, G. (1998). Biological Sequence Analysis. Cambridge University Press. ↗
  62. Elhadad, N., & Sutaria, K. (2007). Mining a lexicon of technical terms and lay equivalents. In Proc. of the Workshop on BioNLP, pp. 49–56, Prague, Czech Republic. find
  63. Erk, K., & Padó, S. (2006). Shalmaneser – a toolchain for shallow semantic parsing. In Proc. of the 5th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Genoa, Italy. find
  64. Erk, K., & Padó, S. (2009). Paraphrase assessment in structured vector space: Exploring parameters and datasets. In Proc. of the EACL Workshop on Geometrical Models of Nat. Lang. Semantics, pp. 57–65, Athens, Greece. find
  65. Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press. find
  66. Finch, A., Hwang, Y. S., & Sumita, E. (2005). Using machine translation evaluation techniques to determine sentence-level semantic equivalence. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Paraphrasing, pp. 17–24, Jeju Island, Korea. find
  67. Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1995). A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. In Proc. of the 2nd European Conf. on Computational Learning Theory, pp. 23–37, Barcelona, Spain. find
  68. Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2000). Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting. Annals of Statistics, 28(2), 337–374. find
  69. Fung, P., & Cheung, P. (2004). Multi-level bootstrapping for extracting parallel sentences from a quasi-comparable corpus. In Proc. of the 20th Int. Conf. on Comp. Linguistics, pp. 1051– 1057, Geneva, Switzerland. find
  70. Galanis, D., & Androutsopoulos, I. (2010). An extractive supervised two-stage method for sentence compression. In Proc. of the HLT Conf. of NAACL , Los Angeles, CA . find
  71. Gale, W., & Church, K. (1993). A program for aligning sentences in bilingual corpora. Comp. Linguistics, 19(1), 75–102. ↗ our card
  72. Germann, U., Jahr, M., Knight, K., Marcu, D., & Yamada, K. (2001). Fast decoding and optimal decoding for machine translation. In Proc. of the 39th Annual Meeting on ACL , pp. 228–235, Toulouse, France. ↗ our card
  73. Giampiccolo, D., Dang, H., Magnini, B., Dagan, I., & Dolan, B. (2008). The fourth PASCAL recognizing textual entailment challenge. In Proc. of the Text Analysis Conference, pp. 1–9, Gaithersburg, MD . find
  74. Giampiccolo, D., Magnini, B., Dagan, I., & Dolan, B. (2007). The third PASCAL recognizing textual entailment challenge. In Proc. of the ACL -Pascal Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, pp. 1–9, Prague, Czech Republic. find
  75. Glickman, O., & Dagan, I. (2004). Acquiring lexical paraphrases from a single corpus. In Nicolov, N., Bontcheva, K., Angelova, G., & Mitkov, R. (Eds.), Recent Advances in Nat. Lang. Processing III, pp. 81–90. John Benjamins. ↗
  76. Grishman, R. (2003). Information extraction. In Mitkov, R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comp. Linguistics, chap. 30, pp. 545–559. Oxford University Press. find
  77. Habash, N., & Dorr, B. (2003). A categorial variation database for english. In Proc. of the HLT Conf. of NAACL , pp. 17–23, Edmonton, Canada. ↗
  78. Haghighi, A. D. (2005). Robust textual inference via graph matching. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 387–394, Vancouver, BC , Canada. find
  79. Harabagiu, S., & Hickl, A. (2006). Methods for using textual entailment in open-domain question answering. In Proc. of the 21st Int. Conf. on Comp. Linguistics and the 44th Annual Meeting of ACL , pp. 905–912, Sydney, Australia. find
  80. Harabagiu, S., Hickl, A., & Lacatusu, F. (2006). Negation, contrast and contradiction in text processing. In Proc. of the 21st National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 755–762, Boston, MA . find
  81. Harabagiu, S., & Moldovan, D. (2003). Question answering. In Mitkov, R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comp. Linguistics, chap. 31, pp. 560–582. Oxford University Press. find
  82. Harabagiu, S. M., Maiorano, S. J., & Pasca, M. A. (2003). Open-domain textual question answering techniques. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 9(3), 231–267. ↗
  83. Harmeling, S. (2009). Inferring textual entailment with a probabilistically sound calculus. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 15(4), 459–477. ↗
  84. Harris, Z. (1964). Distributional Structure. In Katz, J., & Fodor, J. (Eds.), The Philosphy of Linguistics, pp. 33–49. Oxford University Press. find
  85. Hashimoto, C., Torisawa, K., Kuroda, K., De Saeger, S., Murata, M., & Kazama, J. (2009). Large-scale verb entailment acquisition from the Web. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 1172– 1181, Singapore. find
  86. Hearst, M. (1998). Automated discovery of Wordnet relations. In Fellbaum, C. (Ed.), WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press. ↗
  87. Herbelot, A. (2009). Finding word substitutions using a distributional similarity baseline and immediate context overlap. In Proc. of the Student Research Workshop of the 12th Conf. of EACL , pp. 28–36, Athens, Greece. find
  88. Hickl, A. (2008). Using discourse commitments to recognize textual entailment. In Proc. of the 22nd Int. Conf. on Comp. Linguistics, pp. 337–344, Manchester, UK . find
  89. Hobbs, J. (1986). Resolving pronoun references. In Readings in Nat. Lang. Processing, pp. 339– 352. Morgan Kaufmann. find
  90. Hovy, E. (2003). Text summarization. In Mitkov, R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comp. Linguistics, chap. 32, pp. 583–598. Oxford University Press. find
  91. Huffman, S. (1995). Learning information extraction patterns from examples. In Proc. of the IJCAI Workshop on New Approaches to Learning for Nat. Lang. Processing, pp. 127–142, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. find
  92. Ibrahim, A., Katz, B., & Lin, J. (2003). Extracting structural paraphrases from aligned monolingual corpora. In Proc. of the ACL Workshop on Paraphrasing, pp. 57–64, Sapporo, Japan. ↗
  93. Iftene, A. (2008). UAIC participation at RTE 4. In Proc. of the Text Analysis Conference, Gaithersburg, MD . find
  94. Iftene, A., & Balahur-Dobrescu, A. (2007). Hypothesis transformation and semantic variability rules used in recognizing textual entailment. In Proc. of the ACL - PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, pp. 125–130, Prague, Czech Republic. find
  95. Inui, K., & Hermjakob, U. (Eds.). (2003). Proc. of the 2nd Int. Workshop on Paraphrasing: Paraphrase Acquisition and Applications. Sapporo, Japan. find
  96. Jacquemin, C., & Bourigault, D. (2003). Term extraction and automatic indexing. In Mitkov, R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comp. Linguistics, chap. 33, pp. 599–615. Oxford University Press. find
  97. Joachims, T. (2002). Learning to Classify Text Using Support Vector Machines: Methods, Theory, Algorithms. Kluwer. ↗
  98. Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2008). Speech and Language Processing (2nd edition). Prentice Hall. find
  99. Kauchak, D., & Barzilay, R. (2006). Paraphrasing for automatic evaluation. In Proc. of the HLT Conf. of NAACL , pp. 455–462, New York, NY . find our card
  100. Klein, D., & Manning, C. D. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proc. of the 41st Annual Meeting of ACL , pp. 423–430, Sapporo, Japan. find our card
  101. Knight, K., & Marcu, D. (2002). Summarization beyond sentence extraction: A probalistic approach to sentence compression. Artificial Intelligence, 139(1), 91–107. find
  102. Koehn, P. (2004). Pharaoh: a beam search decoder for phrase-based statistical machine translation models. In Proc. of the 6th Conf. of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas, pp. 115–124, Washington, DC . find
  103. Koehn, P. (2009). Statistical Machine Translation. Cambridge University Press. ↗
  104. Koehn, P., Och, F. J., & Marcu, D. (2003). Statistical phrase-based translation. In Proc. of the HLT Conf. of NAACL , pp. 48–54, Edmonton, Canada. ACL . ↗
  105. Kohomban, U., & Lee, W. (2005). Learning semantic classes for word sense disambiguation. In Proc. of the 43rd Annual Meeting of ACL , pp. 34–41, Ann Arbor, MI . find
  106. Kouylekov, M., & Magnini, B. (2005). Recognizing textual entailment with tree edit distance algorithms. In Proc. of the PASCAL Recognising Textual Entailment Challenge. find
  107. Kubler, S., McDonald, R., & Nivre, J. (2009). Dependency Parsing. Synthesis Lectures on HLT . Morgan and Claypool Publishers. find
  108. Lappin, S., & Leass, H. (1994). An algorithm for pronominal anaphora resolution. Comp. Linguistics, 20(4), 535–561. ↗ our card
  109. Leacock, C., Miller, G., & Chodorow, M. (1998). Using corpus statistics and WordNet relations for sense identification. Comp. Linguistics, 24(1), 147–165. ↗
  110. Lepage, Y., & Denoual, E. (2005). Automatic generation of paraphrases to be used as translation references in objective evaluation measures of machine translation. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Paraphrasing, pp. 57–64, Jesu Island, Korea. find
  111. Levenshtein, V. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physice-Doklady, 10, 707–710. find
  112. Lin, D. (1994). PRINCIPAR : an efficient, broad-coverage, principle-based parser. In Proc. of the 15th Conf. on Comp. Linguistics, pp. 482–488, Kyoto, Japan. ACL . ↗
  113. Lin, D. (1998a). Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words. In Proc. of the the 36th Annual Meeting of ACL and 17th Int. Conf. on Comp. Linguistics, pp. 768–774, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. find
  114. Lin, D. (1998b). An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, pp. 296–304, Madison, WI . Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. find
  115. Lin, D. (1998c). An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In Proc. of the 15th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, pp. 296–304, Madison, WI . find
  116. Lin, D., & Pantel, P. (2001). Discovery of inference rules for question answering. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 7, 343–360. ↗
  117. Lonneker-Rodman, B., & Baker, C. (2009). The FrameNet model and its applications. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 15(3), 414–453. ↗
  118. MacCartney, B., Galley, M., & Manning, C. (2008). A phrase-based alignment model for natural language inference. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 802–811, Honolulu, Hawaii. find
  119. MacCartney, B., & Manning, C. (2009). An extended model of natural logic. In Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf. on Computational Semantics, pp. 140–156, Tilburg, The Netherlands. find
  120. Madnani, N., Ayan, F., Resnik, P., & Dorr, B. J. (2007). Using paraphrases for parameter tuning in statistical machine translation. In Proc. of 2nd Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, pp. 120–127, Prague, Czech Republic. find
  121. Malakasiotis, P. (2009). Paraphrase recognition using machine learning to combine similarity measures. In Proc. of the 47th Annual Meeting of ACL and the 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Nat. Lang. Processing of AFNLP , Singapore. find
  122. Malakasiotis, P., & Androutsopoulos, I. (2007). Learning textual entailment using SVM s and string similarity measures. In Proc. of the ACL - PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, pp. 42–47, Prague. ACL . find
  123. Mani, I. (2001). Automatic Summarization. John Benjamins. find
  124. Manning, C. D. (2008). Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press. ↗
  125. Manning, C. D., & Schuetze, H. (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT press. find
  126. Màrquez, L., Carreras, X., Litkowski, K. C., & Stevenson, S. (2008). Semantic role labeling: an introduction to the special issue. Comp. Linguistics, 34(2), 145–159. ↗
  127. Marton, Y., Callison-Burch, C., & Resnik, P. (2009). Improved statistical machine translation using monolingually-derived paraphrases. In Proc. of Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 381–390, Singapore. find our card
  128. McCarthy, D., & Navigli, R. (2009). The English lexical substitution task. Lang. Resources & Evaluation, 43, 139–159. ↗
  129. McDonald, R. (2006). Discriminative sentence compression with soft syntactic constraints. In Proc. of the 11th Conf. of EACL , pp. 297–304, Trento, Italy. find
  130. McKeown, K. (1983). Paraphrasing questions using given and new information. Comp. Linguistics, 9(1). find our card
  131. Mehdad, Y. (2009). Automatic cost estimation for tree edit distance using particle swarm optimization. In Proc. of the 47th Annual Meeting of ACL and the 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Nat. Lang. Processing of AFNLP , pp. 289–292, Singapore. find
  132. Melamed, D. (1999). Bitext maps and alignment via pattern recognition. Comp. Linguistics, 25(1), 107–130. find
  133. Melcuk, I. (1987). Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. State University of New York Press. find
  134. Meyers, A., Macleod, C., Yangarber, R., Grishman, R., Barrett, L., & Reeves, R. (1998). Using NOMLEX to produce nominalization patterns for information extraction. In Proc. of the COLING - ACL workshop on the Computational Treatment of Nominals, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. find
  135. Mintz, M., Bills, S., Snow, R., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In Proc. of the 47th Annual Meeting of ACL and the 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Nat. Lang. Processing of AFNLP , pp. 1003–1011, Singapore. find
  136. Mirkin, S., Dagan, I., & Shnarch, E. (2009a). Evaluating the inferential utility of lexical-semantic resources. In Proc. of the 12th Conf. of EACL , pp. 558–566, Athens, Greece. find
  137. Mirkin, S., Specia, L., Cancedda, N., Dagan, I., Dymetman, M., & Szpektor, I. (2009b). Source-language entailment modeling for translating unknown terms. In Proc. of the 47th Annual Meeting of ACL and the 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Nat. Lang. Processing of AFNLP , pp. 791– 799, Singapore. find
  138. Mitchell, J., & Lapata, M. (2008). Vector-based models of semantic composition. In Proc. of the 46th Annual Meeting of ACL : HLT , pp. 236–244, Columbus, OH . find
  139. Mitchell, T. (1997). Machine Learning. Mc-Graw Hill. find
  140. Mitkov, R. (2003). Anaphora resolution. In Mitkov, R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comp. Linguistics, chap. 14, pp. 266–283. Oxford University Press. find
  141. Moens, M. (2006). Information Extraction: Algorithms and Prospects in a Retrieval Context. Springer. ↗
  142. Moldovan, D., & Rus, V. (2001). Logic form transformation of WordNet and its applicability to question answering. In Proc. of the 39th Annual Meeting of ACL , pp. 402–409, Toulouse, France. find
  143. Mollá, D., Schwitter, R., Rinaldi, F., Dowdall, J., & Hess, M. (2003). Anaphora resolution in E X - TR A NS . In Proc. of the Int. Symposium on Reference Resolution and Its Applications to Question Answering and Summarization, pp. 23–25, Venice, Italy. find
  144. Mollá, D., & Vicedo, J. (2007). Question answering in restricted domains: An overview. Comp. Linguistics, 33(1), 41–61. ↗
  145. Moore, R. C. (2001). Towards a simple and accurate statistical approach to learning translation relationships among words. In Proc. of the ACL Workshop on Data-Driven Machine Translation, Toulouse, France. find
  146. Moschitti, A. (2009). Syntactic and semantic kernels for short text pair categorization. In Proc. of the 12th Conf. of EACL , pp. 576–584, Athens, Greece. find
  147. Munteanu, D. S., & Marcu, D. (2006). Improving machine translation performance by exploiting non-parallel corpora. Comp. Linguistics, 31(4), 477–504. ↗ our card
  148. Muslea, I. (1999). Extraction patterns for information extraction tasks: a survey. In Proc. of the AAAI Workshop on Machine Learning for Information Extraction, Orlando, FL . find
  149. Navigli, R. (2008). A structural approach to the automatic adjudication of word sense disagreements. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 14(4), 547–573. ↗
  150. Nelken, R., & Shieber, S. M. (2006). Towards robust context-sensitive sentence alignment for monolingual corpora. In Proc. of the 11th Conf. of EACL , pp. 161–168, Trento, Italy. find
  151. Nielsen, R., Ward, W., & Martin, J. (2009). Recognizing entailment in intelligent tutoring systems. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 15(4), 479–501. ↗
  152. Nivre, J., Hall, J., Nilsson, J., Chanev, A., Eryigit, G., Kuebler, S., Marinov, S., & Marsi, E. (2007). M ALT P ARSER : a language-independent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 13(2), 95–135. find
  153. Och, F. J., & Ney, H. (2003). A systematic comparison of various stat. alignment models. Comp. Ling., 29(1), 19–21. find
  154. O’Donnell, M., Mellish, C., Oberlander, J., & Knott, A. (2001). ILEX : An architecture for a dynamic hypertext generation system. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 7(3), 225–250. ↗
  155. Padó, S., Galley, M., Jurafsky, D., & Manning, C. D. (2009). Robust machine translation evaluation with entailment features. In Proc. of the 47th Annual Meeting of ACL and the 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Nat. Lang. Processing of AFNLP , pp. 297–305, Singapore. find
  156. Padó, S., & Lapata, M. (2007). Dependency-based construction of semantic space models. Comp. Ling., 33(2), 161–199. ↗ our card
  157. Palmer, M., Gildea, D., & Kingsbury, P. (2005). The Propositional Bank: an annotated corpus of semantic roles. Comp. Linguistics, 31(1), 71–105. find
  158. Pang, B., Knight, K., & Marcu, D. (2003). Syntax-based alignment of multiple translations: extracting paraphrases and generating new sentences. In Proc. of the Human Lang. Techn. Conf. of NAACL , pp. 102–109, Edmonton, Canada. find our card
  159. Pantel, P., Bhagat, R., Coppola, B., Chklovski, T., & Hovy, E. H. (2007). ISP: Learning inferential selectional preferences. In Proc. of the HLT Conf. of NAACL , pp. 564–571, Rochester, NY . find
  160. Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., & Zhu, W. J. (2002). BLEU : a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proc. of the 40th Annual Meeting on ACL , pp. 311–318, Philadelphia, PA . find our card
  161. Pasca, M. (2003). Open-domain question answering from large text collections (2nd edition). Center for the Study of Language and Information. find
  162. Pasca, M., & Dienes, P. (2005). Aligning needles in a haystack: Paraphrase acquisition across the Web. In Proc. of the 2nd Int. Joint Conf. on Nat. Lang. Processing, pp. 119–130, Jeju Island, Korea. find
  163. Perez, D., & Alfonseca, E. (2005). Application of the BLEU algorithm for recognizing textual entailments. In Proc. of the PASCAL Challenges Worshop on Recognising Textual Entailment, Southampton, UK . find
  164. Porter, M. F. (1997). An algorithm for suffix stripping. In Jones, K. S., & Willet, P. (Eds.), Readings in Information Retrieval, pp. 313–316. Morgan Kaufmann. find
  165. Power, R., & Scott, D. (2005). Automatic generation of large-scale paraphrases. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Paraphrasing, pp. 73–79, Jesu Island, Korea. find
  166. Qiu, L., Kan, M. Y., & Chua, T. (2006). Paraphrase recognition via dissimilarity significance classification. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 18–26, Sydney, Australia. find
  167. Quinlan, J. R. (1993). C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann. find our card
  168. Quirk, C., Brockett, C., & Dolan, W. B. (2004). Monolingual machine translation for paraphrase generation. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 142–149, Barcelona, Spain. find our card
  169. Ravichandran, D., & Hovy, E. (2002). Learning surface text patterns for a question answering system. In Proc. of the 40th Annual Meeting on ACL , pp. 41–47, Philadelphia, PA . find
  170. Ravichandran, D., Ittycheriah, A., & Roukos, S. (2003). Automatic derivation of surface text patterns for a maximum entropy based question answering system. In Proc. of the HLT Conf. of NAACL , pp. 85–87, Edmonton, Canada. find
  171. Reiter, E., & Dale, R. (2000). Building Natural Language Generation Systems. Cambridge University Press. ↗
  172. Resnik, P. (1999). Semantic similarity in a taxonomy: An information-based measure and its application to problems of ambiguity in natural language. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11, 95–130. ↗
  173. Riezler, S., Vasserman, A., Tsochantaridis, I., Mittal, V., & Liu, Y. (2007). Statistical machine translation for query expansion in answer retrieval. In Proc. of the 45th Annual Meeting of ACL , pp. 464–471, Prague, Czech Republic. find
  174. Riloff, E. (1996a). Automatically generating extraction patterns from untagged text. In Proc. of the 13th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1044–1049, Portland, OR . find
  175. Riloff, E. (1996b). An empirical study of automated dictionary construction for information extraction in three domains. Artificial Intelligence, 85(1–2), 101–134. ↗
  176. Riloff, E., & Jones, R. (1999). Learning dictionaries for information extraction by multi-level bootstrapping. In Proc. of the 16th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 474–479, Orlando, FL . find
  177. Rinaldi, F., Dowdall, J., Kaljurand, K., Hess, M., & Molla, D. (2003). Exploiting paraphrases in a question answering system. In Proc. of the 2nd Int. Workshop in Paraphrasing, pp. 25–32, Saporo, Japan. find
  178. Sato, S., & Nakagawa, H. (Eds.). (2001). Proc. of the Workshop on Automatic Paraphrasing. Tokyo, Japan. find
  179. Schohn, G., & Cohn, D. (2000). Less is more: active learning with Support Vector Machines. In Proc. of the 17th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, pp. 839–846, Stanford, CA . find
  180. Schuler, K. K. (2005). VerbNet: A Broad-Coverage, Comprehensive Verb Lexicon. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Pennsylvania. ↗
  181. Sekine, S., Inui, K., Dagan, I., Dolan, B., Giampiccolo, D., & Magnini, B. (Eds.). (2007). Proc. of the ACL - PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing. Prague, Czech Republic. find
  182. Sekine, S., & Ranchhod, E. (Eds.). (2009). Named Entities – Recognition, Classification and Use. John Benjamins. find
  183. Selkow, S. (1977). The tree-to-tree editing problem. Information Processing Letters, 6(6), 184–186. ↗
  184. Shinyama, Y., & Sekine, S. (2003). Paraphrase acquisition for information extraction. In Proc. of the ACL Workshop on Paraphrasing, Sapporo, Japan. ↗
  185. Siblini, R., & Kosseim, L. (2008). Using ontology alignment for the TAC RTE challenge. In Proc. of the Text Analysis Conference, Gaithersburg, MD . find
  186. Sleator, D. D., & Temperley, D. (1993). Parsing English with a link grammar. In Proc. of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Parsing Technologies, pp. 277–292, Tilburg, Netherlands and Durbuy, Belgium. find our card
  187. Soderland, S. (1999). Learning inf. extraction rules for semi-structured and free text. Mach. Learning, 34(1–3), 233–272. find
  188. Soderland, S., Fisher, D., Aseltine, J., & Lehnert, W. G. (1995). CRYSTAL : Inducing a conceptual dictionary. In Proc. of the 14th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1314–1319, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. ↗
  189. Stevenson, M., & Wilks, Y. (2003). Word sense disambiguation. In Mitkov, R. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Comp. Linguistics, chap. 13, pp. 249–265. Oxford University Press. find
  190. Stolcke, A. (2002). SRILM – an extensible language modeling toolkit. In Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Spoken Language Processing, pp. 901–904, Denver, CO . find
  191. Szpektor, I., & Dagan, I. (2007). Learning canonical forms of entailment rules. In Proc. of Recent Advances in Natural Lang. Processing, Borovets, Bulgaria. find
  192. Szpektor, I., & Dagan, I. (2008). Learning entailment rules for unary templates. In Proc. of the 22nd Int. Conf. on Comp. Linguistics, pp. 849–856, Manchester, UK . find
  193. Szpektor, I., Dagan, I., Bar-Haim, R., & Goldberger, J. (2008). Contextual preferences. In Proc. of the 46th Annual Meeting of ACL : HLT , pp. 683–691, Columbus, OH . find
  194. Szpektor, I., Shnarch, E., & Dagan, I. (2007). Instance-based evaluation of entailment rule acquisition. In Proc. of the 45th Annual Meeting of ACL , pp. 456–463, Prague, Czech Republic. find
  195. Szpektor, I., Tanev, H., Dagan, I., & Coppola, B. (2004). Scaling Web-based acquisition of entailment relations. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , Barcelona, Spain. find
  196. Tai, K.-C. (1979). The tree-to-tree correction problem. Journal of ACM , 26(3), 422–433. ↗
  197. Tatu, M., Iles, B., Slavick, J., Novischi, A., & Moldovan, D. (2006). COGEX at the second recognizing textual entailment challenge. In Proc. of the 2nd PASCAL Challenges Workshop on Recognising Textual Entailment, Venice, Italy. find
  198. Tatu, M., & Moldovan, D. (2005). A semantic approach to recognizing textual entailment. In Proc. of the Conf. on HLT and EMNLP , pp. 371–378, Vancouver, Canada. find
  199. Tatu, M., & Moldovan, D. (2007). COGEX at RTE 3. In Proc. of the ACL - PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, pp. 22–27, Prague, Czech Republic. find
  200. Tomuro, N. (2003). Interrogative reformulation patterns and acquisition of question paraphrases. In Proc. of the 2nd Int. Workshop on Paraphrasing, pp. 33–40, Sapporo, Japan. find
  201. Tong, S., & Koller, D. (2002). Support Vector Machine active learning with applications to text classification. Machine Learning Research, 2, 45–66. find
  202. Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C. D., & Singer, Y. (2003). Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In Proc. of the HLT Conf. of NAACL , pp. 173–180, Edmonton, Canada. find
  203. Tsatsaronis, G. (2009). Word Sense Disambiguation and Text Relatedness Based on Word Thesauri. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Informatics, Athens University of Economics and Business. find
  204. Tsatsaronis, G., Varlamis, I., & Vazirgiannis, M. (2010). Text relatedness based on a word thesaurus. Artificial Intelligence Research, 37, 1–39. ↗
  205. Turney, P., & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Artificial Intelligence Research, 37, 141–188. ↗
  206. Vapnik, V. (1998). Statistical learning theory. John Wiley. find
  207. Vendler, Z. (1967). Verbs and Times. In Linguistics in Philosophy, chap. 4, pp. 97–121. Cornell University Press. find
  208. Vogel, S., Ney, H., & Tillmann, C. (1996). HMM-based word alignment in statistical translation. In Proc. of the 16th Conf. on Comp. Linguistics, pp. 836–841, Copenhagen, Denmark. find
  209. Voorhees, E. (2001). The TREC QA track. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 7(4), 361–378. find
  210. Voorhees, E. (2008). Contradictions and justifications: Extensions to the textual entailment task. In Proc. of the 46th Annual Meeting of ACL : HLT , pp. 63–71, Columbus, OH . find
  211. Wan, S., Dras, M., Dale, R., & Paris, C. (2006). Using dependency-based features to take the “para-farce” out of paraphrase. In Proc. of the Australasian Language Technology Workshop, pp. 131–138, Sydney, Australia. find
  212. Wang, R., & Neumann, G. (2008). An divide-and-conquer strategy for recognizing textual entailment. In Proc. of the Text Analysis Conference, Gaithersburg, MD . find
  213. Wang, X., Lo, D., Jiang, J., Zhang, L., & Mei, H. (2009). Extracting paraphrases of technical terms from noisy parallel software corpora. In Proc. of the 47th Annual Meeting of ACL and the 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Nat. Lang. Processing of AFNLP , pp. 197–200, Singapore. find
  214. Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2005). Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann. find
  215. Wu, D. (2000). Alignment. In Dale, R., Moisl, H., & Somers, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Nat. Lang. Processing, pp. 415–458. Marcel Dekker. find
  216. Wubben, S., van den Bosch, A., Krahmer, E., & Marsi, E. (2009). Clustering and matching headlines for automatic paraphrase acquisition. In Proc. of the 12th European Workshop on Nat. Lang. Generation, pp. 122–125, Athens, Greece. find
  217. Xu, F., Uszkoreit, H., & Li, H. (2007). A seed-driven bottom-up machine learning framework for extracting relations of various complexity. In Proc. of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Comp. Linguistics, pp. 584–591, Prague, Czech Republic. find
  218. Yang, X., Su, J., & Tan, C. L. (2008). A twin-candidate model for learning-based anaphora resolution. Comp. Linguistics, 34(3), 327–356. ↗ our card
  219. Yarowski, D. (2000). Word-sense disambiguation. In Dale, R., Moisl, H., & Somers, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Nat. Lang. Processing, pp. 629–654. Marcel Dekker. find
  220. Zaenen, A., Karttunen, L., & Crouch, R. (2005). Local textual inference: Can it be defined or circumscribed?. In Proc. of the ACL workshop on Empirical Modeling of Semantic Equivalence and Entailment, pp. 31–36, Ann Arbor, MI . find
  221. Zanzotto, F. M., & Dell’ Arciprete, L. (2009). Efficient kernels for sentence pair classification. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 91–100, Singapore. find
  222. Zanzotto, F. M., Pennacchiotti, M., & Moschitti, A. (2009). A machine-learning approach to textual entailment recognition. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 15(4), 551–582. ↗
  223. Zhang, K., & Shasha, D. (1989). Simple fast algorithms for the editing distance between trees and related problems. SIAM Journal of Computing, 18(6), 1245–1262. ↗
  224. Zhang, Y., & Patrick, J. (2005). Paraphrase identification by text canonicalization. In Proc. of the Australasian Language Technology Workshop, pp. 160–166, Sydney, Australia. find
  225. Zhang, Y., & Yamamoto, K. (2005). Paraphrasing spoken Chinese using a paraphrase corpus. Nat. Lang. Engineering, 11(4), 417–434. ↗
  226. Zhao, S., Lan, X., Liu, T., & Li, S. (2009). Application-driven statistical paraphrase generation. In Proc. of the 47th Annual Meeting of ACL and the 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Nat. Lang. Processing of AFNLP , pp. 834–842, Singapore. find our card
  227. Zhao, S., Wang, H., Liu, T., & Li, S. (2008). Pivot approach for extracting paraphrase patterns from bilingual corpora. In Proc. of the 46th Annual Meeting of ACL : HLT , pp. 780–788, Columbus, OH . find
  228. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M., & Dagan, I. (2009). Bootstrapping distributional feature vector quality. Computational Linguistics, 35, 435–461. ↗
  229. Zhou, L., Lin, C.-Y., & Hovy, E. (2006a). Re-evaluating machine translation results with paraphrase support. In Proc. of the Conf. on EMNLP , pp. 77–84. find
  230. Zhou, L., Lin, C.-Y., Munteanu, D. S., & Hovy, E. (2006b). P ARA E VAL : Using paraphrases to evaluate summaries automatically. In Proc. of the HLT Conf. of NAACL , pp. 447–454, New York, NY . find

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/androutsopoulos-2009-survey-paraphrasing-textual-entailment-methods/