A machine learning approach to textual entailment recognition

Natural Language Engineering

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 551-582

  Zanzotto, Fabio Massimo ^a   Pennacchiotti, Marco ^b   Moschitti, Alessandro ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

^b SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FEATURE SPACE; FIRST-ORDER; MACHINE-LEARNING; REWRITE RULES; SEMANTIC FEATURES; SEMANTIC RELATIONS; SUPERVISED MACHINE LEARNING; TEXT FRAGMENTS; TEXTUAL ENTAILMENT;

CHARACTER RECOGNITION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; SEMANTICS;

LEARNING ALGORITHMS;

EID: 76449118321     PISSN: 13513249     EISSN: 14698110     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1351324909990143     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abney, S. 1996. Part-of-speech tagging and partial parsing. In G. Bloothooft, K. Church, and S. Young (eds.), Corpus-Based Methods in Language and Speech. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 118-136.
2. Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., and Lowe, J. B. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet project. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL, Montreal, Canada.
3. Bar-Haim, R., Dagan, I., Dolan, B., Ferro, L., Giampiccolo, D., and Magnini, I., Szpektor, B. 2006. The second pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the Second PASCAL Challenges Workshop on Recognising Textual Entailment, Venice, Italy.
4. Bar-Haim, R., Szpecktor, I., and Glickman, O. 2005. Definition and analysis of intermediate entailment levels. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Empirical Modeling of Semantic Equivalence and Entailment, Ann Arbor, MI.
5. Basili, R., De Cao, D., Marocco, P., and Pennacchiotti, P. 2007. Learning selectional preferences for entailment or paraphrasing rules. In Proceedings of RANLP 2007, Borovets, Bulgaria.
6. Bhagat, R., Pantel, P., and Hovy, E. 2007. Ledir: an unsupervised algorithm for learning directionality of inference rules. In Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-07), Prague.
7. Carpenter, B. 1992. The Logic of Typed Feature Structures. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Carreras, X., and M̀arquez, X. 2005. Introduction to the CoNLL-2005 Shared Task: Semantic Role Labeling. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2005), Ann Arbor, MI.
9. Charniak, E. 2000. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proceedings of the First NAACL, Seattle, Washington, DC.
10. Collins, M., and Duffy, N. 2002. New ranking algorithms for parsing and tagging: kernels over discrete structures, and the voted perceptron. In Proceedings of ACL02, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
11. Corley, C., and Mihalcea, R. 2005. Measuring the semantic similarity of texts. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Empirical Modeling of Semantic Equivalence and Entailment, Ann Arbor, MI.
12. Dagan, I., Glickman, O., and Magnini, B. 2006. The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge. In J. Quinonero-Candela, I. Dagan, B. Magnini and F. d'Alch́e-Buc et al. (eds.), LNAI 3944: MLCW 2005, pp. 177-190. Milan: Springer.
13. de Marneffe, M.-C., MacCartney, B., Grenager, T., Cer, D., Rafferty, A., and Manning, C. D. 2006. Learning to distinguish valid textual entailments. In B. Magnini and I. Dagan (eds.), Proceedings of the Second PASCAL Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge. Venice: Springer, pp. 74-79.
14. de Salvo Braz, R., Girju, R., Punyakanok, V., Roth, D., and Sammons, M. 2005a. An inference model for semantic entailment in natural language. In Proceedings of AAAI, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 1678-1679.
15. de Salvo Braz, R., Girju, R., Punyakanok, V., Roth, D., and Sammons, M. 2005b. An inference model for semantic entailment in natural language. In Proceedings of the First Pascal Challenge Workshop, Southampton, UK.
16. Giampiccolo, D., Magnini, B., Dagan, I., and Dolan, B. 2007. The third pascal recognizing textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, Prague.
17. Gildea, D. and Jurafsky, D. 2002. Automatic Labeling of Semantic Roles. Computational Linguistics 28(3): 245-288.
18. Glickman, O., Dagan, I., and Koppel, M. 2005. Web based probabilistic textual entailment. In Proceedings of the First Pascal Challenge Workshop, Southampton, UK.
19. Haasdonk, B. 2005. Feature space interpretation of SVMs with indefinite kernels. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 27(4): 482-492.
20. Haghighi, A., Ng, A., and Manning, C. 2005. Robust textual inference via graph matching. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing Vancouver, BC, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
21. Harris, Z. 1964. Distributional structure. In J. J. Katz and J. A. Fodor (eds.), The Philosophy of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 33-49.
22. Hickl, A., Williams, J., Bensley, Roberts, K., Rink, B., and Shi, Y. 2006. Recognizing textual entailment with LCC's groundhog system. In B Magnini, and I. Dagan (eds.), Proceedings of the Second PASCAL Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge, Venice, Italy, pp. 80-85.
23. Inkpen, D, Kipp. D, and Nastase, V. 2006. Machine learning experiments for textual entailment. In B. Magnini, and I. Dagan (eds.), Proceedings of the Second PASCAL Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge, Venice, Italy, pp. 10-15.
24. Jiang, J. J., and Conrath, D. W. 1997. Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 10th ROCLING, Tapei, Taiwan.
25. Joachims, T. 1999. Making large-scale SVM learning practical. In B. Schlkopf, C. Burges, and A. Smola (eds.), Advances in Kernel Methods-Support Vector Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
26. Katrenko, S., and Adriaans, P. 2006. Using maximal embedded syntactic subtrees for textual entailment recognition. In B. Magnini and I. Dagan (eds.), Proceedings of the Second PASCAL Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge, Venice, Italy, pp. 33-37.
27. Kouylekov, M., and Magnini, B. 2005. Tree edit distance for textual entailment. In Proceedings of the RANLP-2005, Borovets, Bulgaria.
28. Lin, D. and Pantel, P. 2001. DIRT - discovery of inference rules from text. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-01), San Francisco, CA.
29. MacCartney, B., Grenager, T., deMarneffe,M.-C., Cer, D., andManning, C. D. 2006. Learning to recognize features of valid textual entailments. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL, Main Conference, New York City.
30. Marsi, E., Krahmer, E., and Bosma, W. 2007. Dependency-based paraphrasing for recognizing textual entailment. In Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, Prague.
31. Miller, G. A. 1995. WordNet: a lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM 38(11): 39-41.
32. Minnen, G., Carroll, J., and Pearce, D. 2001. Applied morphological processing of english. Natural Language Engineering 7(3): 207-223.
33. Moschitti, A. 2006a. Efficient convolution kernels for dependency and constituent syntactic trees. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Machine Learning, Berlin, Germany.
34. Moschitti, A. 2006b. Making tree kernels practical for natural language learning. In Proceedings of EACL'06, Trento, Italy.
35. Moschitti, A., and Zanzotto, F. M. 2007. Fast and effective kernels for relational learning from texts. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Machine Learning (ICML), Corvallis, OR.
36. Moschitti, A., and Zanzotto, F. M. 2008. Encoding tree pair-based graphs in learning algorithms: the textual entailment recognition case. In Proceedings of TextGraphs-3: Graph-Based Algorithms for Natural Language Processing Workshop Held in Coling Coference, Machester, England, UK.
37. Newman, E., Stokes, N., Dunnion, J., and Carthy, J. 2005. Textual entailment recognition using a linguistically-motivated decision tree classifier. In J. Q. Candela, I. Dagan, B. Magnini, and F. d'Alch́e Buc (eds.), pp. 372-382 MLCW, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.3944. Berlin: Springer.
38. Pantel, P., Bhagat, R., Coppola, B., Chklovski, T., and Hovy, E. 2007. ISP: learning inferential selectional preferences. In Proceedings of HLT/NAACL 2007, Rochester, NY.
39. Pazienza, M. T., Pennacchiotti, M., and Zanzotto, F. M. 2005. A linguistic inspection of textual entailment. In LNAI 3673: Proceedings of the AIIA 2005, Milan.
40. Pedersen, T., Patwardhan, S., and Michelizzi, J. 2004. WordNet:Similarity - measuring the relatedness of concepts. In Proceedings of the Fifth NAACL, Boston, MA.
41. Raina, R., Haghighi, A., Cox, C., Finkel, J., Michels, J., Toutanova, K., MacCartney, B., de Marneffe, M.-C., Christopher, M., and Ng, A. Y. 2005. Robust textual inference using diverse knowledge sources. In Proceedings of the First Pascal Challenge Workshop, Southampton, UK.
42. Snow, R., Vanderwende, L., and Menezes, A. 2006. Effectively using syntax for recognizing false entailment. In Proceedings of HLT/NAACL 2006, New York.
43. Szpektor, I., Tanev, H., Dagan, I., and Coppola, B. 2004. Scaling web-based acquisition of entailment relations. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Barcelona.
44. Vanderwende, L. and Dolan, W. B. 2006. What syntax can contribute in the entailment task. In J. Q. Candela, I. Dagan, B. Magnini, and F. d'Alch́e Buc (eds.), Machine Learning Challenges Workshop, pp. 205-216. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.3944. Berlin: Springer.
45. Zanzotto, F. M., and Moschitti, A. 2006. Automatic learning of textual entailments with cross-pair similarities. In Proceedings of the 21st Coling and 44th ACL, Sydney.
46. Zanzotto, F. M., Pennacchiotti, M., and Pazienza, M. T. 2006. Discovering asymmetric entailment relations between verbs using selectional preferences. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Sydney.