CA-RNN: Using Context-Aligned Recurrent Neural Networks for Modeling Sentence Similarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recurrent neural networks (RNNs) have shown good performance for sentence similarity modeling in recent years. Most RNNs focus on modeling the hidden states based on the current sentence, while the context information from the other sentence is not well investigated during the hidden state generation. In this paper, we propose a context-aligned RNN (CA-RNN) model, which incorporates the contextual information of the aligned words in a sentence pair for the inner hidden state generation. Specifically, we first perform word alignment detection to identify the aligned words in the two sentences. Then, we present a context alignment gating mechanism and embed it into our model to automatically absorb the aligned words' context for the hidden state update. Experiments on three benchmark datasets, namely TREC-QA and WikiQA for answer selection and MSRP for paraphrase identification, show the great advantages of our proposed model. In particular, we achieve the new state-of-the-art performance on TREC-QA and WikiQA. Furthermore, our model is comparable to if not better than the recent neural network based approaches on MSRP.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".