MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296086669

JU_CSE_TAC: Textual Entailment Recognition System at TAC RTE-6

2010· article· en· W2296086669 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTextual entailmentComputer scienceNatural language processingTask (project management)SentenceNoveltyArtificial intelligenceLogical consequenceSet (abstract data type)Similarity (geometry)Programming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The note describes the Recognizing Textual Entailment (RTE) system developed at the Computer Science and Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, India. In this competition, we participated and submitted the results in the RTE-6 Main Task (3 runs), Novelty Task (3 runs) and RTE-6 KBP task (3 runs for generic task and 3 runs for tailored task). For the Main and the Novelty Tasks, the corpus was a collection of news wire documents from various sources and arranged into particular topics, a hypothesis H and a set of sentences retrieved by Lucene from that corpus for the hypothesis H. Each sentence in the set of documents associated with a given topic was involved in an entailment relationship with each hypothesis for the topic. RTE systems are required to identify all the sentences that entail H among the candidate sentences. For the Main and the Novelty Tasks, the system is based on the composition of lexical entailment module, lexical distance module, Chunk module, Named Entity module and syntactic text entailment (TE) module. Our TE system is based on the Support Vector Machine (SVM) that uses twenty five features for lexical similarity, the output tag from a rule based syntactic two-way TE system as a feature and the outputs from a rule based Chunk Module and Named Entity Module as the other features. For the Main task test set, the following micro-average results were obtained for Run 1: F-Score 34.79, Run 2: F-Score 26.78 and Run 3 : F-score 31.19. For the novelty task test set, the following micro-average results were obtained for Run 1: Novelty Evaluation FScore 81.77 and Justification Evaluation F-Score 34.35, Run 2: Novelty Evaluation F-Score 78.18 and Justification Evaluation 26.87 and Run 3: Novelty Evaluation F-score 78.69 and Justification Evaluation 24.57 were obtained. The KBP Slot Filling task is focused on the searching a collection of news wire and Web documents and extracting values for a predefined set of attributes (“slots”) for the target entities. The RTE KBP Validation Pilot is based on the assumption that extracted slot filler is correct if and only if the supporting document entails an hypothesis created on the basis of the slot filler. In RTE KBP, we participated for generic task and tailored task. For the RTE-6 KBP test set for Generic Task, micro-average results for Run 1: F-Score 0.1403, Run 2: F-Score 0.172 and Run 3: F-score 0.1531 were obtained. For RTE-6 KBP test set for Tailored Task, micro-average results for Run 1: F-Score 0.3, Run 2: F-Score 0.3307 and Run 3: F-score 0.3288 were obtained.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it