4.1 Article

Robust semantic text similarity using LSA, machine learning, and linguistic resources

期刊

LANGUAGE RESOURCES AND EVALUATION
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 125-161

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10579-015-9319-2

关键词

Latent semantic analysis; WordNet; Term alignment; Semantic similarity

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation [1228198, 1250627, 0910838]
  2. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  3. Division Of Computer and Network Systems [1228673] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  5. Div Of Information & Intelligent Systems [1250627, 0910838] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Computer and Network Systems
  7. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr [1228198] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Semantic textual similarity is a measure of the degree of semantic equivalence between two pieces of text. We describe the SemSim system and its performance in the *SEM 2013 and SemEval-2014 tasks on semantic textual similarity. At the core of our system lies a robust distributional word similarity component that combines latent semantic analysis and machine learning augmented with data from several linguistic resources. We used a simple term alignment algorithm to handle longer pieces of text. Additional wrappers and resources were used to handle task specific challenges that include processing Spanish text, comparing text sequences of different lengths, handling informal words and phrases, and matching words with sense definitions. In the *SEM 2013 task on Semantic Textual Similarity, our best performing system ranked first among the 89 submitted runs. In the SemEval-2014 task on Multilingual Semantic Textual Similarity, we ranked a close second in both the English and Spanish subtasks. In the SemEval-2014 task on Cross-Level Semantic Similarity, we ranked first in Sentence-Phrase, Phrase-Word, and Word-Sense subtasks and second in the Paragraph-Sentence subtask.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据