Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 2

Certainty factor model in paraphrase detection

Eşanlatım tespitinde eminlik faktörü modeli

Pages
139–150
Publication Date
2021-04-04
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The experimental results showed that CF model is an alternating paraphrase detection method to Bayes model.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this paper, we address the problem of uncertainty management in identification of paraphrase sentence pairs.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The CF model is evaluated by F1 and accuracy measures on Microsoft Research Paraphrase corpus.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The experimental results showed that CF model is an alternating paraphrase detection method to Bayes model.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Eşanlatım · Eşanlatım tespiti · Eminlik faktörü

Abstract

In this paper, we address the problem of uncertainty management in identification of paraphrase sentence pairs. Paraphrase sentences are simply sets/pairs of sentences that express the same facts and/or opinions using different words or order of words. We propose the use of certainty factor (CF) model in paraphrase detection. A set of succeeding paraphrase detection features (generic and distance based features) is built by filtering and this set is used as evidences in CF model. The CF model is evaluated by F1 and accuracy measures on Microsoft Research Paraphrase corpus. The results are compared to the well-known Bayesian reasoning. The experimental results showed that CF model is an alternating paraphrase detection method to Bayes model.

Özet

Bu makalede, eşanlatımlı cümle çiftlerinin belirlenmesindeki belirsizlik problemi üzerinde durulmuştur. Eşanlatım cümleleri basitçe aynı olay ve/veya fikri farklı sözcük veya sözcüklerin farklı dizilişleri ile ifade eden cümle çiftleri/kümeleridir. Çalışmada eşanlatım tespitinde eminlik faktörü (EF) modelinin kullanılması önerilmiştir. EF modelinde kullanılmak üzere filtreleme yöntemi ile eşanlatım tespitinde başarılı olan öznitelikler (jenerik ve uzaklık tabanlı öznitelikler) belirlenmiş ve bu öznitelikler kümesi EF modelinde deliller olarak kullanılmıştır. EF modeli Microsoft Eşanlatım derlemi üzerinde F1 ve doğruluk ölçekleri ile sınanmıştır. Yöntemin başarımı Bayes karar verme yaklaşımı ile kıyaslanmıştır. Deney sonuçları EF modelinin eşanlatım tespitinde Bayes modeline bir alternatif yöntem olduğunu göstermiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

METİN, S. K., KARAOĞLAN, B., KIŞLA, T., SOLEYMANZADEH, K. (2021). Certainty factor model in paraphrase detection. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 2, 139–150. https://ajindex.com/articles/117419

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Shortliffe EH, Buchanan BG. “A model of inexact reasoning in medicine” Mathematical Biosciences. 23(3-4), 351-379, 1975
  2. Dolan B, Quirk C, Brockett C. “Unsupervised construction of large paraphrase corpora: exploiting massively parallel news sources”. 20th International Conference Computational Linguistic (COLING ’04), Geneva, Switzerland, 23-27 August 2004
  3. Fernando S, Stevenson M. “A Semantic Similarity Approach to Paraphrase Detection”. Proceedings of the 11th annual research colloquium of the UK special interest group for computational linguistics (CLUK 2008), Oxford, United Kingdom, 1-3 March 2008
  4. Salton G, Lesk ME. “Computer Evaluation of Indexing and Text Processing”. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 15(1), 8-36, 1968
  5. Schütze H. “Automatic word sense discrimination”. Computational Linguistic. 24(1), 97-123, 1998
  6. Lin CY Hovy E. “The potential and limitations of automatic sentence extraction for summarization”. Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 03 Text Summarization Workshop, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 31 May- 3 June 2003
  7. Mihalcea R, Corley C, Strapparava C. “Corpus-based and knowledge-based measures of text semantic similarity”. Proceeding 21st Conference Artifical Intelligence, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 16-20 July 2006
  8. Zhang Y, Patrick J. “Paraphrase Identification by Text Canonicalization”. Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Workshop, Sydney, Australia, 9-11 December 2005
  9. Finch A, Hwang YS, Sumita E. “Using Machine Translation Evaluation Techniques to Determine Sentence-level Semantic Equivalence”. The Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP 2005), Jeju Island, Korea, 14 October 2005
  10. Papineni K, Roukos S, Ward T, Zhu W. “BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation”. Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 7-12 July 2002
  11. Doddington G. “Automatic evaluation of machine translation quality using n-gram co-occurrence statistics”. Proceedings of the Second İnternational Conference on Human Language Technology Research, San Diego, California, USA, 24-27 March 2002
  12. Madnani N, Tetreault J, Chodorow M. “Re-Examining Machine Translation Metrics for Paraphrase Identification”. Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL HLT ’12), Montreal, Canada, 3-8 June 2012
  13. Kozareva Z, Montoy