MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404784473

Lexical based two-way RTE System at RTE-5.

2009· article· en· W2404784473 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Partha Pakray, Sivaji Bandyopadhyay, Alexander Gelbukh

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBigramComputer scienceNatural language processingWordNetArtificial intelligenceTextual entailmentTask (project management)Identification (biology)Matching (statistics)Logical consequenceStatisticsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The note describes the lexical based two-way Recognizing Textual Entailment (RTE) system developed at the Computer Science and Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, India. We participated in the two-way main task at RTE-5. The system is based on the composition of the following six lexical based RTE methods: WordNet based unigram match, bigram match, longest common sub-sequence, skip-gram, stemming and named entity matching. Each of these methods were applied on the development data to obtain two-way decisions. It was observed on the development data that final entailment decision on a text-hypothesis pair that is based on positive entailment decisions from at least two lexical based RTE methods was producing a better precision and recall figure. An accuracy figure of 58.17% was obtained on the test data. Ablation tests were performed for each of the six RTE methods and these are reported in the present note. The RTE task was based on three application settings: QA, IE and IR but this information was not taken into consideration during the system development. The relatively higher accuracy figures for the IR application setting obtained during the various tests suggest that identification of appropriate RTE methods based on the application settings might have improved the accuracy scores further.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and applications of categoriesSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207