ETS: Discriminative edit models for paraphrase scoring

*SEM 2012 - 1st Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics

Volumn 2, Issue , 2012, Pages 529-535

  Heilman, Michael ^a   Madnani, Nitin ^a  

^a EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; COMPUTER AIDED LANGUAGE TRANSLATION; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

DISCRIMINATIVE LEARNING; FEATURE TYPES; MACHINE TRANSLATION EVALUATIONS; MACHINE TRANSLATIONS; SHORT TEXTS; SUBTASKS; TEXTUAL SIMILARITIES;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 84958955224     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. E. Agirre, D. Cer, M. Diab, and A. Gonzalez-Agirre. 2012. SemEval-2012 task 6: A pilot on semantic textual similarity. In Proc. of the 6th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2012), in conjunction with the First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (SEM 2012).
2. C. Bannard and C. Callison-Burch. 2005. Paraphrasing with bilingual parallel corpora. In Proc. of ACL, pages 597-604.
3. D. Chen and W. B. Dolan. 2011. Collecting highly parallel data for paraphrase evaluation. In Proc. of ACL, pages 190-200.
4. M. Collins. 2002. Discriminative training methods for hidden Markov models: Theory and experiments with the perceptron algorithm. In Proc. of EMNLP.
5. W. Dolan, C. Quirk, and C. Brockett. 2004. Unsupervised construction of large paraphrase corpora: Exploiting massively parallel news sources. In Proc. of COLING, pages 350-356, Geneva, Switzerland.
6. C. Fellbaum. 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Bradford Books.
7. P. Koehn. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. In Proc. of Machine Translation Summit.
8. C. Leacock and M. Chodorow. 2003. c-rater: Scoring of short-Answer questions. Computers and the Humanities, 37.
9. R. D. Nielsen, W. Ward, and J. H. Martin. 2008. Classification errors in a domain-independent assessment system. In Proc. of the Third Workshop on Innovative Use of Natural Language Processing for Building Educational Applications.
10. M. F. Porter. 1980. An algorithm for suffix stripping. Program, 3(14):130-137.
11. S. S. Pradhan and N. Xue. 2009. OntoNotes: The 90% solution. In Proc. of Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Companion Volume: Tutorial Abstracts, pages 11-12.
12. M. A. Przybocki, K. Peterson, S. Bronsart, and G. A. Sanders. 2009. The NIST 2008 metrics for machine translation challenge-overview, methodology, metrics, and results. Machine Translation, 23(2-3):71-103.
13. F. Rosenblatt. 1958. The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychological Review, 65.
14. M. Snover, B. Dorr, R. Schwartz, L. Micciulla, and J. Makhoul. 2006. A study of Translation Edit Rate with targeted human annotation. In Proc. of the Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA).
15. M. Snover, N. Madnani, B. Dorr, and R. Schwartz. 2009a. Fluency, adequacy, or HTER? Exploring different human judgments with a tunable MT metric. In Proc. of the Fourth Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation at the 12th Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-2009), March.
16. M. Snover, N. Madnani, B. Dorr, and R. Schwartz. 2009b. TER-Plus: Paraphrase, semantic, and alignment enhancements to Translation Edit Rate. Machine Translation, 23(2-3):117-127.
17. M. Wang, N. A. Smith, and T. Mitamura. 2007. What is the Jeopardy model? A quasi-synchronous grammar for QA. In Proc. of of EMNLP.