Cited by 56Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Exploiting Image Generality for Lexical Entailment Detection

Open access
Kiela, Douwe, Rimell, Laura, Vulić, Ivan, Clark, Stephen·2015·Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers)

Abstract

Douwe Kiela, Laura Rimell, Ivan Vulić, Stephen Clark. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers). 2015.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3115/v1/p15-2020

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The same embeddings achieved a state-of-the-art accuracy of 0.86 on WBLESS, which evaluates non-graded lexical entailment.

    “The same embeddings also achieved a state-of-the-art accuracy of 0 . 86 on WBLESS [33, 14], which evaluates non-graded lexical entailment.”

    From Poincaré Embeddings for Learning Hierarchical Representations (2017) · cites this paper as [14]

    Table 2 (Results) reports WBLESS accuracy of 0.75 for image dispersion and 0.74 for centroid distance, not 0.86. The Results say dispersion matches the best-performing supervised method; the paper does support describing WBLESS as a non-graded entailment-detection evaluation. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Carina Silberer and Mirella Lapata. 2014. Learn- ing grounded meaning representations with autoen- coders. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 721-732.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kiela, D., Rimell, L., Vulić, I., & Clark, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Venue
Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers)
Published
2015
Pages
119-124
OpenAlex
W2251109971
Cited by
55
References
36
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 7
FWCI
4.88
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Lirias (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • KU Leuven
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/I037512/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
visual grounding, natural language understanding

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