Exploiting image generality for lexical entailment detection

ACL-IJCNLP 2015 - 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn 2, Issue , 2015, Pages 119-124

  Kiela, Douwe ^a   Vulić, Ivan ^b   Rimell, Laura ^a   Clark, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; LINGUISTICS; SEMANTICS;

NOVEL TASK; STATE-OF-THE-ART PERFORMANCE; UNSUPERVISED METHOD; VISUAL PROPERTIES; SEMANTIC EVALUATIONS;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 84944032131     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.3115/v1/p15-2020     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Marco Baroni and Alessandro Lenci. 2011. How we BLESSed distributional semantic evaluation. In Proceedings of the GEMS 2011 Workshop, pages 1-10
2. Shane Bergsma and Randy Goebel. 2011. Using vi-sual information to predict lexical preference. In Proceedings ofRANLP, pages 399-105
3. Or Biran and Kathleen McKeown. 2013. Classifying taxonomic relations between pairs of wikipedia arti-cles. In Proceedings ofUCNLP, pages 788-794
4. Johan Bos and Katja Markert. 2005. Recognising tex-tual entailment with logical inference. In Proceed-ings ofEMNLP, pages 628-635
5. Elia Bruni, Nam-Khanh Tran, and Marco Baroni. 2014. Multimodal distributional semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 49:1-17
6. Daoud Clarke. 2009. Context-theoretic semantics for natural language: An overview. In Proceedings of the GEMS 2009 Workshop, pages 112-119
7. Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Fei-Fei Li. 2009. ImageNet: A large-scale hier-archical image database. In Proceedings of CVPR, pages 248-255
8. Thomas Deselaers and Vittorio Ferrari. 2011. Visual and semantic similarity in imagenet. In Proceedings of CVPR, pages 1777-1784
9. Robert Fergus, Li Fei-Fei, Pietro Perona, and Andrew Zisserman. 2005. Learning object categories from Google's image search. In Proceedings of ICCV, pages 1816-1823
10. Dan Garrette, Katrin Erk, and Raymond Mooney. 2011. Integrating logical representations with prob-abilistic information using Markov logic. In Pro-ceedings oflWCS, pages 105-114
11. M. Geffet and I. Dagan. 2005. The distributional in-clusion hypotheses and lexical entailment. In Pro-ceedings of ACL, pages 107-114
12. Aurelie Herbelot and Mohan Ganesalingam. 2013. Measuring semantic content in distributional vec-tors. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 440-145
13. Yangqing Jia, Evan Shelhamer, Jeff Donahue, Sergey Karayev, Jonathan Long, Ross Girshick, Sergio Guadarrama, and Trevor Darrell. 2014. Caffe: Con-volutional architecture for fast feature embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5093
14. Hongyan Jing. 1998. Usage of wordnet in natural language generation. In Proceedings of COLING-ACL'98 Workshop on Usage of WordNet in Natural Language Processing Systems
15. Douwe Kiela and Leon Bottou. 2014. Learning image embeddings using convolutional neural networks for improved multi-modal semantics. In Proceedings of EMNLP, pages 36-15
16. Douwe Kiela, Felix Hill, Anna Korhonen, and Stephen Clark. 2014. Improving multi-modal representa-tions using image dispersion: Why less is sometimes more. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 835-841
17. Lili Kotlerman, Ido Dagan, Idan Szpektor, and Maayan Zhitomirsky-Geffet. 2010. Directional distribu-tional similarity for lexical inference. Natural Lan-guage Engineering, 16(4):359-389
18. Angeliki Lazaridou, Nghia The Pham, and Marco Ba-Roni. 2015. Combining language and vision with a multimodal skip-gram model. In Proceedings of NAACL-HLT
19. Alessandro Lenci and Giulia Benotto. 2012. Identify-ing hypernyms in distributional semantic spaces. In Proceedings of ∗SEM, pages 75-79
20. Omer Levy, Steffen Remus, Chris Biemann, and Ido Dagan. 2015. Do supervised distributional methods really learn lexical inference relations? In Proceed-ings ofNAACL
21. J.H. Martin. 1990. A Computational Model of Metaphor Interpretation. Academic Press Profes-sional, Inc.
22. George A. Miller. 1995. WordNet: A lexical database for English. In Communications of the ACM, vol-ume 38, pages 39-11
23. Michael Mohler, David Bracewell, Marc Tomlinson, and David Hinote. 2013. Semantic signatures for example-based linguistic metaphor detection. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Metaphor in NLP
24. Laura Rimell. 2014. Distributional lexical entailment by topic coherence. In Proceedings ofEACL, pages 511-519
25. Enrico Santus, Alessandro Lend, Qin Lu, and Sabine Schulteim Walde. 2014. Chasing hyper-nyms in vector spaces with entropy. In Proceedings ofEACL, pages 38-2
26. Saeedeh Shekarpour, Konrad Hoffner, Jens Lehmann, and Soren Auer. 2013. Keyword query expansion on linked data using linguistic and semantic features. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Con-ference on Semantic Computing, pages 191-197
27. Carina Silberer and Mirella Lapata. 2014. Learn-ing grounded meaning representations with autoen-coders. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 721-732
28. Josef Sivic and Andrew Zisserman. 2003. Video Google: A text retrieval approach to object match-ing in videos. In Proceedings oflCCV, pages 1470-1477
29. Peter D. Turney, Yair Neuman, Dan Assaf, and Yohai Cohen. 2011. Literal and metaphorical sense iden-tification through concrete and abstract context. In Proceedings ofEMNLP, pages 680-690
30. Julie Weeds, David Weir, and Diana McCarthy. 2004. Characterising measures of lexical distributional similarity. In Proceedings ofCOLING
31. Julie Weeds, Daoud Clarke, Jeremy Reffin, David Weir, and Bill Keller. 2014. Learning to distinguish hy-pernyms and co-hyponyms. In Proceedings ofCOL-ING, pages 2249-2259
32. W. A. Woods, Stephen Green, Paul Martin, and Ann Houston. 2001. Aggressive morphology and lexi-cal relations for query expansion. In Proceedings of TREC
33. M. Zhitomirsky-Geffet and I. Dagan. 2009. Bootstrap-ping distributional feature vector quality. Computa-tional Linguistics, 35(3):435461