Expanding Paraphrase Lexicons by Exploiting Generalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Techniques for generating and recognizing paraphrases, i.e., semantically equivalent expressions, play an important role in a wide range of natural language processing tasks. In the last decade, the task of automatic acquisition of subsentential paraphrases, i.e., words and phrases with (approximately) the same meaning, has been drawing much attention in the research community. The core problem is to obtain paraphrases of high quality in large quantity. This article presents a method for tackling this issue by systematically expanding an initial seed lexicon made up of high-quality paraphrases. This involves automatically capturing morpho-semantic and syntactic generalizations within the lexicon and using them to leverage the power of large-scale monolingual data. Given an input set of paraphrases, our method starts by inducing paraphrase patterns that constitute generalizations over corresponding pairs of lexical variants, such as “amending” and “amendment,” in a fully empirical way. It then searches large-scale monolingual data for new paraphrases matching those patterns. The results of our experiments on English, French, and Japanese demonstrate that our method manages to expand seed lexicons by a large multiple. Human evaluation based on paraphrase substitution tests reveals that the automatically acquired paraphrases are also of high quality.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".