Exploiting discourse information to identify paraphrases

Expert Systems with Applications

Volumn 41, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 2832-2841

  Bach, Ngo Xuan ^a   Minh, Nguyen Le ^a   Shimazu, Akira ^a  

^a JAPAN ADVANCED INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Discourse segmentation; Elementary discourse unit; MT metric; Paraphrase identification; Support vector machine; Text similarity

Indexed keywords

DISCOURSE SEGMENTATION; ELEMENTARY DISCOURSE UNIT; MT METRIC; PARAPHRASE IDENTIFICATIONS; TEXT SIMILARITY;

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES;

EID: 84890557608     PISSN: 09574174     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2013.10.018     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Agirre, E.; Cer, D.; Diab, M.; Gonzalez-Agirre, A. (2012). Semeval-2012 task 6: A pilot on semantic textual similarity. In Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval) (pp. 385-393).
2. Attardi, G.; Ciaramita, M. (2007). Tree revision learning for dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the annual conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics (NAACL) (pp. 388-395).
3. Bach, N. X.; Minh, N. L.; Shimazu, A. (2012a). A reranking model for discourse segmentation using subtree features. In Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue (SIGDIAL) (pp. 160-168).
4. Bach, N. X.; Minh, N. L.; Shimazu, A. (2012b). UDRST: A novel system for unlabeled discourse parsing in the RST framework. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on natural language processing (JapTAL) (pp. 250-261).
5. Barzilay, R.; McKeown, K. R.; Elhadad, M. (1999). Information fusion in the context of multi-document summarization. In Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL) (pp. 550-557).
6. Bentivogli, L.; Dagan, I.; Dang, H.T.; Giampiccolo, D.; Magnini, B. (2009). The fifth Pascal recognizing textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of text analysis conference (TAC).
7. Boella, G.; Di Caro, L. (2013). Extracting definitions and hypernym relations relying on syntactic dependencies and support vector machines. In Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL) (pp. 532-537).
8. Callison-Burch, C.; Koehn, P.; Osborne, M. (2006). Improved statistical machine translation using paraphrases. In Proceedings of the human language technology conference of the NAACL (HLT-NAACL) (pp. 17-24).
9. Carlson, L.; Marcu, D.; Okurowski, M. E. (2002). RST discourse treebank.
10. Chan, Y. S.; Ng, H. T. (2008). MAXSIM: A maximum similarity metric for machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the 46th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technology (ACL-HLT) (pp. 55-62).
11. C.C. Chang, and C.J. Lin LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 2 3 2011 27:1 27:27
12. M. Collins, and T. Koo Discriminative reranking for natural language parsing Computational Linguistics 31 1 2005 25 70
13. Das, D.; Smith, N. A. (2009). Paraphrase identification as probabilistic quasi-synchronous recognition. In Proceedings of the joint conference of the 47th annual meeting of the ACL and the forth international joint conference on natural language processing of the AFNLP (ACL-IJCNLP) (pp. 468-476).
14. Deléger, L.; Zweigenbaum, P. (2009). Extracting lay paraphrases of specialized expressions from monolingual comparable medical corpora. In Proceedings of the second workshop on building and using comparable corpora: From parallel to non-parallel corpora (pp. 2-10).
15. Denkowski, M.; Lavie, M. (2010). Extending the METEOR machine translation metric to the phrase level. In Proceedings of the 2010 annual conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics (NAACL) (pp. 250-253).
16. Doddington, G. (2002). Automatic evaluation of machine translation quality using N-gram co-occurrence statistics. In Proceedings of the second international conference on human language technology research (pp. 138-145).
17. Duboue, P. A.; Chu-Carroll, J. (2006). Answering the question you wish they had asked: The impact of paraphrasing for question answering. In Proceedings of the human language technology conference of the NAACL (HLT-NAACL) (pp. 33-36).
18. Fernando, S.; Stevenson, M. (2008). A semantic similarity approach to paraphrase detection. In Proceedings of the computational linguistics UK (CLUK).
19. Finch, A.; Hwang, Y. S.; Sumita, E. (2005). Using machine translation evaluation techniques to determine sentence-level semantic equivalence. In Proceedings of the third international workshop on paraphrasing (pp. 17-24).
20. Ganitkevitch, J.; Callison-Burch, C.; Napoles, C.; Van Durme, B. (2011). Learning sentential paraphrases from bilingual parallel corpora for text-to-text generation. In Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (pp. 1168-1179).
21. Habash, N.; Kholy, A. E. (2008). SEPIA: Surface span extension to syntactic dependency precision-based mt evaluation. In Proceedings of the workshop on metrics for machine translation at AMTA.
22. Hernault, H.; Bollegala, D.; Ishizuka, M. (2010). A sequential model for discourse segmentation. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on intelligent text processing and computational linguistics (CICLING) (pp. 315-326).
23. Joty, S.; Carenini, G.; Ng, R. T. (2012). A novel discriminative framework for sentence-level discourse analysis. In Proceedings of the 2012 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning (EMNLP-CONLL) (pp. 904-915).
24. Joty, S.; Carenini, G.; Ng, R.; Mehdad, Y. (2013). Combining intra- and multi-sentential rhetorical parsing for document-level discourse analysis. In Proceedings of the 51st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL) (pp. 486-496).
25. Klein, D.; Manning, C. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL) (pp. 423-430).
26. Kozareva, Z.; Montoyo, A. (2006). Paraphrase identification on the basis of supervised machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on natural language processing (FinTAL) (pp. 524-533).
27. Kudo, T. (2012). CRF++: Yet another crf toolkit. .
28. Lafferty, J.; McCallum, A.; Pereira, F. (2001). Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on machine learning (ICML) (pp. 282-289).
29. Leusch, G.; Ueffing, N.; Ney, H. (2003). A novel string-to-string distance measure with applications to machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of the ninth machine translation summit (MT Summit IX).
30. Madnani, N.; Tetreault, J.; Chodorow, M. (2012). Re-examining machine translation metrics for paraphrase identification. In Proceedings of the 2012 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies (NAACL-HLT) (pp. 182-190).
31. Mann, W. C.; Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory. Toward a functional theory of text organization (pp. 243-281).
32. Mihalcea, R.; Corley, C.; Strapparava, C. (2006). Corpus-based and knowledge-based measures of text semantic similarity. In Proceedings of the twenty-first national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 775-780).
33. M. Mohri, A. Rostamizadeh, and A. Talwalkar Foundations of machine learning 2012 MIT Press
34. Niessen, S.; Och, F.; Leusch, G.; Ney, H. (2000). An evaluation tool for machine translation: Fast evaluation for mt research. In Proceedings of the second international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC).
35. Papineni, K.; Roukos, S.; Ward, T.; Zhu, W. J. (2002). BLEU: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL) (pp. 311-318).
36. Parker, S. (2008). BADGER: A new machine translation metric. In Proceedings of the workshop on metrics for machine translation at AMTA.
37. Proisl, T.; Greiner, P.; Evert, S.; Kabashi, B. (2013). Klue: Simple and robust methods for polarity classification. In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval 2013) (pp. 395-401).
38. Regneri, M.; Wang, R. (2012). Using discourse information for paraphrase extraction. In Proceedings of the 2012 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning (EMNLP-CONLL) (pp. 916-927).
39. Rus, V.; McCarthy, P. M.; Lintean, M. C.; McNamara, D. S.; Graesser, A. C. (2008). Paraphrase identification with lexico-syntactic graph subsumption. In Proceedings of the twenty-first international florida artificial intelligence research society conference (FLAIRS) (pp. 201-206).
40. M. Rushdi Saleh, M.T. Martín-Valdivia, A. Montejo-Ráez, and L.A. Ureña López Experiments with svm to classify opinions in different domains Expert Systems with Applications 38 12 2011 14799 14804
41. Snover, M.; Dorr, B.; Schwartz, R.; Micciulla, L.; Makhoul, J. (2006). A study of translation edit rate with targeted human annotation. In Proceedings of the conference of the association for machine translation in the Americas (AMTA).
42. M. Snover, N. Madnani, B. Dorr, and R. Schwartz TER-Plus: Paraphrase, semantic, and alignment enhancements to translation edit rate Machine Translation 23 23 2009 117 127
43. Socher, R.; Huang, E. H.; Pennington, J.; Ng, A. Y.; Manning, C. D. (2011). Dynamic pooling and unfolding recursive autoencoders for paraphrase detection. In Advances in neural information processing systems 24 (NIPS) (pp. 801-809).
44. Surdeanu, M.; Manning, C. (2010). Ensemble models for dependency parsing: Cheap and good? In Proceedings of the 2010 annual conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics (NAACL) (pp. 649-652).
45. Tang, L.; Geva, S.; Trotman, A.; Xu, Y. (2010). A voting mechanism for named entity translation in english-chinese question answering. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on cross lingual information access at COLING 2010 (pp. 43-51).
46. Thomas, P.; Neves, M.; Rocktäschel, T.; Leser, U. (2013). Wbi-ddi: Drug-drug interaction extraction using majority voting. In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval 2013) (pp. 628-635).
47. Uzuner, O.; Katz, B.; Nahnsen, T. (2005). Using syntactic information to identify plagiarism. In Proceedings of the second workshop on building educational applications using natural language processing (pp. 37-44).
48. V.N. Vapnik Statistical learning theory 1998 Wiley-Interscience
49. Wan, S.; Dras, R.; Dale, M.; Paris, C. (2006). Using dependency-based features to take the Para-farce out of paraphrase. In Proceedings of the 2006 Australasian language technology workshop (pp. 131-138).
50. Wang, S.; Manning, C. (2012). Baselines and bigrams: Simple, good sentiment and topic classification. In Proceedings of the 50th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL) (pp. 90-94).
51. Wu, H.; Wang, H. (2005). Improving statistical word alignment with ensemble methods. In Proceedings of the international joint conference on natural language processing (IJCNLP) (pp. 462-473).
52. Zhang, M.; Li, H. (2009). Tree kernel-based svm with structured syntactic knowledge for btg-based phrase reordering. In Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (pp. 698-707).
53. C. Zhu, R.H. Byrd, P. Lu, and J. Nocedal Algorithm 778: L-BFGS-B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) 23 4 1997 550 560