Inferring textual entailment with a probabilistically sound calculus*

By Stefan Harmeling. 2009

31 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Natural Language Processing

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Natural Language Processing

Citations in the corpus

ProoFVer: Natural Logic Theorem Proving for Fact Verification (2021, methodology): “Similar proof systems have used mutations in the form of tree-edit operations (Mehdad, 2009), transformations over syntactic parses (Heilman and Smith, 2010; Harmeling, 2009), knowledge-based transformations in the form of lexical mutations, entailment rules, rewrite rules, or their combinations (Ba”
A Survey of Paraphrasing and Textual Entailment Methods (2009, background): “…or edge) with the minimum cost that turns one tree into the other.14 To obtain more accurate predictions, it is important to devise an appropriate inventory of operators and assign appropriate costs to the operators during a training stage (Kouylekov & Magnini, 2005; Mehdad, 2009; Harmeling, 2009).”
A Confidence Model for Syntactically-Motivated Entailment Proofs (2011, background): “0 % Probabilistic Calculus of Tree Transformations (Harmeling, 2009) 56.”
Design and realization of a modular architecture for textual entailment (2013, background): “The second distinction can be drawn between knowledge-lean algorithms (Harmeling 2009) and algorithms that rely on linguistic and world knowledge to decide the validity of inferences.”
Efficient Search for Transformation-based Inference (2012, methodology): “An appealing approach to such textual inferences is to explicitly transform T into H, using a sequence of transformations (Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Harmeling, 2009; Mehdad, 2009; Wang and Manning, 2010; Heilman and Smith, 2010; Stern and Dagan, 2011).”
Knowledge-Based Textual Inference via Parse-Tree Transformations (2015, background): “These transformations are based on available knowledge about paraphrases, lexical relations such as synonyms and hyponyms, syntactic variations, and more (de Salvo Braz, Girju, Punyakanok, Roth, & Sammons, 2005; Haghighi, Ng, & Manning, 2005; Kouylekov & Magnini, 2005; Harmeling, 2009).”