Semantic Inference at the Lexical-Syntactic Level for Textual Entailment Recognition
What it is about
The paper proposes a proof system for textual entailment that works directly on dependency trees. Entailment rules, manual or acquired from WordNet and from DIRT-style paraphrase data, rewrite the text tree step by step towards the hypothesis, and a cost function measures the remaining distance when no full proof is found. Proofs are limited to depth four, and the parser is Minipar. On the RTE-3 test set the full system reaches 62.4% accuracy with an optimal threshold, and the lexical-only configuration 62.9%, so the richer rules give no consistent gain. On the development set exact proofs have 92% precision but only 4.3% recall; lexical-syntactic rules fire in about 3% of attempted proofs, and missing world knowledge is the main cause of failure.
Ideas
- I1.
en/src/morph.rsand the tree code: a small rule base in the paper's form, a left template matched on a UD tree, a right template generated, and alignment rules that copy the modifiers. Start with the passive-to-active rule and check it on tree pairs built from the school lessons. - I2. Negation and modality as annotation rules: they set features on nodes and block later rewrites (for example under "never"). Measure how many false entailments appear when the blocking is switched off, on a small negative control set.
- I3. Report exact-proof precision and recall separately, and use a cost threshold only when no proof is found, as the paper does. This keeps every "yes" traceable to the rules that produced it.
- I4. A polarity column for complement-taking verbs: "know that p" licenses p in a positive context, "believe that p" does not. Put the list in the complementation chapter and test it on paired sentences.
For Mova
The chapters are languages/en/28-voice-and-passive.md (the passive rule), languages/en/27-negation.md (negation and polarity) and languages/en/23-complementation.md (complement polarity). The code is in prag/src/infer.rs and world/src/qa.rs. Measure exact-proof precision and recall on a held-out set of pairs, and run it twice to check determinism.
Cite
@inproceedings{barhaim2007semantic,
title = {{Semantic Inference at the Lexical-Syntactic Level for Textual Entailment Recognition}},
author = {Bar-Haim, Roy and Dagan, Ido and Greental, Iddo and Szpektor, Idan and Friedman, Moshe},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing},
year = {2007},
doi = {10.3115/1654536.1654563},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3115/1654536.1654563}
}References
- Roy Bar-Haim, Ido Dagan, Iddo Greental, and Eyal Shnarch. 2007. Semantic inference at the lexical-syntactic level. In AAAI (to appear). find
- Christiane Fellbaum, editor. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Language, Speech and Communication. MIT Press. find
- Dekang Lin and Patrik Pantel. 2001. Discovery of inference rules for question answering. Natural Language Engineering, 4(7):343–360. find
- Dekang Lin. 1998a. Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words. In Proceedings of COLING/ACL. find
- Dekang Lin. 1998b. Dependency-based evaluation of minipar. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Evaluation of Parsing Systems at LREC. find
- C. Macleod, R. Grishman, A. Meyers, L. Barrett, and R. Reeves. 1998. Nomlex: A lexicon of nominalizations. In EURALEX. find
- Ruslan Mitkov, Richard Evans, and Constantin Orasan. 2002. A new, fully automatic version of Mitkov’s knowledge-poor pronoun resolution method. In Proceedings of CICLing. find
- Rowan Nairn, Cleo Condoravdi, and Lauri Karttunen. 2006. Computing relative polarity for textual inference. In Proceedings of ICoS-5. find our card
- Jeffrey C. Reynar and Adwait Ratnaparkhi. 1997. A maximum entropy approach to identifying sentence boundaries. In Proceedings of ANLP. find
- Tal Ron. 2006. Generating entailment rules based on online lexical resources. Master’s thesis, Computer Science Department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. find