Lexical reference: A semantic matching subtask

COLING/ACL 2006 - EMNLP 2006: 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 172-179

  Glickman, Oren ^a   Shnarch, Eyal ^a   Dagan, Ido ^a  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA SETS; INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS; LEXICAL REFERENCE; MATCHING MODELS; SEMANTIC MATCHING;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; SEMANTICS; STATISTICAL TESTS;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 80053370207     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Roy Bar-Haim, Idan Szpecktor, and Oren Glickman. 2005. Definition and analysis of intermediate entailment levels. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Empirical Modeling of Semantic Equivalence and Entailment, pages 55-60, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June. Association for Computational Linguistics.
2. Regina Barzilay and Kathleen McKeown. 2001. Extracting paraphrases from a parallel corpus. In ACL, pages 50-57.
3. Johan Bos and Katja Markert. 2005. Recognising textual entailment with logical inference techniques. In EMNLP.
4. Courtney Corley and Rada Mihalcea. 2005. Measuring the semantic similarity of texts. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Empirical Modeling of Semantic Equivalence and Entailment, pages 13-18.
5. Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini, editors. 2006. The PASCAL Recognising Textual Entailment Challenge, volume 3944. Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
6. Gottlob Frege. 1892. On sense and reference. Reprinted in P. Geach and M. Black, eds., Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. 1960.
7. Oren Glickman and Ido Dagan, 2004. Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing III, chapter Acquiring lexical paraphrases from a single corpus, pages 81-90. John Benjamins.
8. Oren Glickman, Ido Dagan, and Moshe Koppel. 2005. A probabilistic classification approach for lexical textual entailment. In AAAI, pages 1050-1055.
9. Oren Glickman, Ido Dagan, and Moshe Koppel. 2006. A lexical alignment model for probabilistic textual entailment, volume 3944. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 287 - 298. Springer.
10. Sanda M. Harabagiu, Dan I. Moldovan, Marius Pasca, Rada Mihalcea, Mihai Surdeanu, Razvan C. Bunescu, Roxana Girju, Vasile Rus, and Paul Morarescu. 2000. Falcon: Boosting knowledge for answer engines. In TREC.
11. Eduard H. Hovy, Ulf Hermjakob, and Chin-Yew Lin. 2001. The use of external knowledge of factoid QA. In Text REtrieval Conference.
12. Valentin Jijkoun and Maarten de Rijke. 2005. Recognizing textual entailment using lexical similarity. Proceedings of the PASCAL Challenges Workshop on Recognising Textual Entailment (and forthcoming LNAI book chapter).
13. J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch. 1997. The measurements of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33:159-174.
14. Claudia Leacock, George A. Miller, and Martin Chodorow. 1998. Using corpus statistics and wordnet relations for sense identification. Comput. Linguist., 24(1):147-165.
15. Dekang Lin and Patrik Pantel. 2001. Discovery of inference rules for question answering. Natural Language Engineering, 4(7):343-360.
16. Dekang Lin. 1998. Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Computational linguistics, pages 768-774, Morristown, NJ, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
17. Lucy Vanderwende, Deborah Coughlin, and Bill Dolan. 2005. What syntax can contribute in entailment task. Proceedings of the PASCAL Challenges Workshop on Recognising Textual Entailment..
18. Ellen M. Voorhees and Donna Harman. 1999. Overview of the seventh text retrieval conference. In Proceedings of the Seventh Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-7). NIST Special Publication.