The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
From Paraphrase Database to Compositional Paraphrase Model and Back
Open accessAbstract
The Paraphrase Database (PPDB; Ganitkevitch et al., 2013) is an extensive semantic resource, consisting of a list of phrase pairs with (heuristic) confidence estimates. However, it is still unclear how it can best be used, due to the heuristic nature of the confidences and its necessarily incomplete coverage. We propose models to leverage the phrase pairs from the PPDB to build parametric paraphrase models that score paraphrase pairs more accurately than the PPDB’s internal scores while simultaneously improving its coverage. They allow for learning phrase embeddings as well as improved word embeddings. Moreover, we introduce two new, manually annotated datasets to evaluate short-phrase paraphrasing models. Using our paraphrase model trained using PPDB, we achieve state-of-the-art results on standard word and bigram similarity tasks and beat strong baselines on our new short phrase paraphrase tasks.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines
Chang, C.-C., & Lin, C.-J. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/1961189.1961199 · Cited by 40,918
Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation
Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1162 · Cited by 34,071
Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3781 · Cited by 26,568
Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.4546 · Cited by 24,533
Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification
Kim, Y. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1181 · Cited by 14,831
Indexing by latent semantic analysis
Deerwester, S., Dumais, S. T., Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., & Harshman, R. (1990) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199009)41:6<391::aid-asi1>3.0.co;2-9 · Cited by 12,751
(2010) · Cited by 8,261
The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit
Manning, C., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S., & McClosky, D. (2014) · Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations · doi:10.3115/v1/p14-5010 · Cited by 7,037
Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank
Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J., Chuang, J., Manning, C. D., Ng, A., & Potts, C. (2013) · Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d13-1170 · Cited by 6,878
Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix
Steiger, J. H. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245 · Cited by 4,621
Cited by
Unsupervised Learning of Sentence Embeddings Using Compositional n-Gram Features
Pagliardini, M., Gupta, P., & Jaggi, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1049 · Cited by 678
Neural Belief Tracker: Data-Driven Dialogue State Tracking
Mrkšić, N., Ó Séaghdha, D., Wen, T.-H., Thomson, B., & Young, S. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1163 · Cited by 459
Wieting, J., & Gimpel, K. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1042 · Cited by 317
Self-citationA Survey of Cross-lingual Word Embedding Models
Ruder, S., Vulić, I., & Søgaard, A. (2019) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.11640 · Cited by 266
Neural Natural Language Inference Models Enhanced with External Knowledge
Chen, Q., Zhu, X., Ling, Z.-H., Inkpen, D., & Wei, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1224 · Cited by 253
Metadata
- Authors
- Wieting, J., Bansal, M., Gimpel, K., & Livescu, K.
- Venue
- Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2015-12
- Volume
- 3
- Pages
- 345-358
- ISSN
- 2307-387X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1814992895
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 40.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: From Paraphrase Database to Compositional Paraphrase Model and Back. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/tacl_a_00143
- The paper
- Wieting, J., Bansal, M., Gimpel, K., & Livescu, K. (2015). From Paraphrase Database to Compositional Paraphrase Model and Back. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00143
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
