A Phrase-Based Alignment Model for Natural Language Inference

The alignment problem---establishing links between corresponding phrases in two related sentences---is as important in natural language inference (NLI) as it is in machine translation (MT). But the tools and techniques of MT alignment do not readily transfer to NLI, where one cannot assume semantic equivalence, and for which large volumes of bitext are lacking. We present a new NLI aligner, the MANLI system, designed to address these challenges. It uses a phrase-based alignment representation, exploits external lexical resources, and capitalizes on a new set of supervised training data. We compare the performance of MANLI to existing NLI and MT aligners on an NLI alignment task over the well-known Recognizing Textual Entailment data. We show that MANLI significantly outperforms existing aligners, achieving gains of 6.2% in F1 over a representative NLI aligner and 10.5% over GIZA++.

[1]  Hermann Ney,et al.  A Systematic Comparison of Various Statistical Alignment Models , 2003, CL.

[2]  Alexander M. Fraser,et al.  Squibs and Discussions: Measuring Word Alignment Quality for Statistical Machine Translation , 2007, CL.

[3]  Ido Dagan,et al.  Semantic Inference at the Lexical-Syntactic Level , 2007, AAAI.

[4]  Hermann Ney,et al.  HMM-Based Word Alignment in Statistical Translation , 1996, COLING.

[5]  John DeNero,et al.  The Complexity of Phrase Alignment Problems , 2008, ACL.

[6]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  A Phrase-Based,Joint Probability Model for Statistical Machine Translation , 2002, EMNLP.

[7]  John DeNero,et al.  Why Generative Phrase Models Underperform Surface Heuristics , 2006, WMT@HLT-NAACL.

[8]  Andrew Hickl,et al.  Recognizing Textual Entailment with LCC’s G ROUNDHOG System , 2005 .

[9]  Ido Dagan,et al.  The Third PASCAL Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[10]  David W. Conrath,et al.  Semantic Similarity Based on Corpus Statistics and Lexical Taxonomy , 1997, ROCLING/IJCLCLP.

[11]  Ido Dagan,et al.  Web Based Probabilistic Textual Entailment , 2005 .

[12]  Roy Bar-Haim,et al.  The Second PASCAL Recognising Textual Entailment Challenge , 2006 .

[13]  Valentin Jijkoun,et al.  Recognizing Textual Entailment Using Lexical Similarity , 2005 .

[14]  Dan I. Moldovan,et al.  COGEX at RTE 3 , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[15]  Emiel Krahmer,et al.  Classification of Semantic Relations by Humans and Machines , 2005, EMSEE@ACL.

[16]  Michael Collins,et al.  Discriminative Training Methods for Hidden Markov Models: Theory and Experiments with Perceptron Algorithms , 2002, EMNLP.

[17]  Chris Quirk,et al.  Unsupervised Construction of Large Paraphrase Corpora: Exploiting Massively Parallel News Sources , 2004, COLING.

[18]  Dekang Lin,et al.  Automatic Retrieval and Clustering of Similar Words , 1998, ACL.

[19]  Chris Brockett,et al.  Aligning the RTE 2006 Corpus , 2007 .

[20]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Learning to recognize features of valid textual entailments , 2006, NAACL.

[21]  Andrew Hickl,et al.  A Discourse Commitment-Based Framework for Recognizing Textual Entailment , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[22]  Robert L. Mercer,et al.  The Mathematics of Statistical Machine Translation: Parameter Estimation , 1993, CL.

[23]  Philipp Koehn,et al.  Constraining the Phrase-Based, Joint Probability Statistical Translation Model , 2006, WMT@HLT-NAACL.

[24]  Eric Yeh,et al.  Learning Alignments and Leveraging Natural Logic , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[25]  Ben Taskar,et al.  Alignment by Agreement , 2006, NAACL.

[26]  Philipp Koehn,et al.  Moses: Open Source Toolkit for Statistical Machine Translation , 2007, ACL.