Using Machine Translation Evaluation Techniques to Determine Sentence-level Semantic Equivalence
By Andrew M. Finch, Young-Sook Hwang, Eiichiro Sumita. 2005
114 citations recorded by the source corpus.
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Hua He
- Noah A. Smith
- Wenpeng Yin
- Dipanjan Das
- Ion Androutsopoulos
- Nitin Madnani
- Joel R. Tetreault
- Prodromos Malakasiotis
Citations in the corpus
- Skip-Thought Vectors (2015, neutral): “FHS [25] 75.”
- Multi-Perspective Sentence Similarity Modeling with Convolutional Neural Networks (2015, neutral): “We report F1 scores and accuracies from prior work in Fern and Stevenson (2008) 74.1% 82.4% Finch (2005) 75.0% 82.7% Das and Smith (2009) 76.1% 82.7% Wan et al. (2006) 75.6% 83.0% Socher et al. (2011) 76.8% 83.6% Madnani et al. (2012) 77.4% 84.1% Ji and Eisenstein (2013) 80.41 % 85.96 % Madnani et…”
- Using Dependency-Based Features to Take the ’Para-farce’ out of Paraphrase (2006, methodology): “This is consistent with the same levels of performance observed between our system and that of Finch et al. (2005) in Table 1.”
- Paraphrase Identification as Probabilistic Quasi-Synchronous Recognition (2009, methodology): “Such overlap features give the best-published classifi-cation accuracy for the paraphrase identification task (Zhang and Patrick, 2005; Finch et al., 2005; Wan et al., 2006; Corley and Mihalcea, 2005, inter alia ), but do not explicitly model correspondence structure (or “alignment”) between the…”
- Re-examining Machine Translation Metrics for Paraphrase Identification (2012, methodology): “Given this setup, the most relevant previous work is by Finch et al. (2005) which uses BLEU, NIST, WER and PER as features for a supervised classification approach using SVMs.”
- A Survey of Paraphrasing and Textual Entailment Methods (2009, background): “…By treating semantically similar words (e.g., synonyms, or hypernyms-hyponyms up to a small hierarchical distance) as identical (Rinaldi et al., 2003; Finch et al., 2005; Tatu, Iles, Slavick, Novischi, & Moldovan, 2006; Iftene & Balahur-Dobrescu, 2007; Malakasiotis, 2009; Harmeling,…”