What Makes Sentences Semantically Related? A Textual Relatedness Dataset and Empirical Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
What Makes Sentences Semantically Related? A Textual Relatedness Dataset and Empirical Study This repository contains data and code for the paper What Makes Sentences Semantically Related: A Textual Relatedness Dataset and Empirical Study. We hope that this work will spur further research on understanding sentence--sentence relatedness, methods of sentence representation, measures of semantic relatedness, and their applications. Citing our work Please use the following BibTex entry to cite us if you use our dataset or any of the associated analyses: @inproceedings{abdalla2023makes, title={What Makes Sentences Semantically Related: A Textual Relatedness Dataset and Empirical Study}, author={Abdalla, Mohamed and Vishnubhotla, Krishnapriya and Mohammad, Saif M.}, year={2023}, address = {Dubrovnik, Croatia}, publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics", booktitle = "Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume" } Dataset Description The dataset consists of 5500 English sentence pairs that are scored and ranked on a relatedness scale ranging from 0 (least related) to 1 (most related). Why Semantic Relatedness? Closeness of meaning can be of two kinds: semantic relatedness and semantic similarity. Two sentences are considered semantically similar when they have a paraphrasal or entailment relation, whereas relatedness accounts for all of the commonalities that can exist between two sentences. Semantic relatedness is central to textual coherence and narrative structure. Automatically determining semantic relatedness has many applications such as question answering, plagiarism detection, text generation (say in personal assistants and chat bots), and summarization. Prior NLP work has focused on semantic similarity (a small subset of semantic relatedness), largely because of a dearth of datasets. In this paper, we present the first manually annotated dataset of sentence--sentence semantic relatedness. It includes fine-grained scores of relatedness from 0 (least related) to 1 (most related) for 5,500 English sentence pairs. The sentences are taken from diverse sources and thus also have diverse sentence structures, varying amounts of lexical overlap, and varying formality. Comparative Annotations and Best-Worst Scaling Most existing sentence-sentence similarity datasets were annotated, one item at a time, using coarse rating labels such as integer values between 1 and 5 @ representing coarse degrees of closeness. It is well documented that such approaches suffer from inter- and intra-annotator inconsistency, scale region bias, and issues arising due to the fixed granularity. The relatedness scores for our dataset were, instead, obtained using a comparative annotation schema. In comparative annotations, two (or more) items are presented together and the annotator has to determine which is greater with respect to the metric of interest. Specifically, we use Best-Worst Scaling, a comparative annotation method}, which has been shown to produce reliable scores with fewer annotations in other NLP tasks. We use scripts from https://saifmohammad.com/WebPages/BestWorst.html to obtain relatedness scores from our annotations. Loading the Dataset - The sentence pairs, and associated scores, are in the file sem_text_rel_ranked.csv in the root directory. The CSV file can be read using: python import pandas as pd str = pd.read_csv('sem_text_rel_ranked.csv') row = str.loc[0] sent1, sent2 = row['Text'].split("\n") score = row['Score'] - Relevant columns: - Text: Sentence pair, separated by the newline character. - Score: The semantic relatedness score between 0 and 1. - Additionally: - the SourceID column indicates the source dataset from which the sentence pair was drawn (see Table 2 of our paper) - The SubsetID column indicates the sampling strategy used for the source dataset - and the PairID is a unique identifier for each pair that also indicates its Source and Subset. Raw Annotations from Amazon Mechanical Turk - The `mturk_data/` subdirectory provides the raw MTurk annotations obtained with our comparative annotation setup. - Each row of `mturk_data/bws_annotations.csv` consists of four sentence pairs along with human annotations for the most related (column `BestItem`) and the least related (column `WorstItem`) pair. - File `mturk_data/id2sents.csv` pairs each sentence pair with the corresponding SourceID, SubsetID, and PairID that indicates the source dataset (see Table 2 of our paper). - See file `mturk_data/task_intructions.txt` for the instructions provided to annotators for our task. Datasheet for STR-2022 The datasheet for our dataset is in the document `STR2022-datastatement.pdf` in the root folder of this repository. Ethics Statement Any dataset of semantic relatedness entails several ethical considerations. We talk about this in Section 8 of our paper. Creators - Mohamed Abdalla (University of Toronto) - Krishnapriya Vishnubhotla (University of Toronto) - Saif M. Mohammad (National Research Council Canada) Contact: msa@cs.toronto.edu, vkpriya@cs.toronto.edu, saif.mohammad@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».