Computational Linguistics & Phonetics Computational Linguistics & Phonetics Fachrichtung 4.7 Universität des Saarlandes


Date Topic Speaker References Slides
24.04. Introduction Manfred Pinkal Introduction.pdf
01.05. Holiday
08.05. Entailment, Deduction, Theorem Proving Manfred Pinkal Blackburn&Bos 2003 Logical_Deduction.pdf
15.05. Textual Entailment Manfred Pinkal/all Monz&de Rijke 2001
22.05. Shallow Methods for RTE
Introduction to RTE 1
Michael Wirth Dagan&Glickman 2005 Shallow_Methods.pdf
29.05. Abduction for deep linguistic reasoning Anna Mündelein Hobbs et al. 1993, Raina et al. 2005 Abduction.pdf
05.06. Classical linguistic Inference I Alexander Volokh Gardent&Konrad 2000 Linguistic_Inference.pdf
12.06. Paraphrases for textual inference Olga Kukina Lin&Pantel 2001, Bazilay&Lee 2003, Bannard et al. 2005 Paraphrases.pdf
19.06. Harvesting semantic information for RTE Marco Pennacchiotti
26.06. Cancelled (ACL)
03.07. Classical linguistic Inference II Michaela Regneri Koller et al. 2004 Linguistic_Inference_II.pdf
10.07. Polarity information for RTE Teresa Herrmann Nairn et al. 2006 Polarity.pdf
17.07. Discussion Zaenen et al. 2005, Manning 2006

Possible topics for student presentations

Prototypical Alternative Approaches

  • Shallow Methods for RTE Monz&de Rijke 2001, Jijkoun&de Rijke 2005, Kouylekov&Magnini 2005, Herrera et al. 2005
  • Abduction for deep linguistic reasoning and RTE Hobbs et al. 1988, Hobbs et al. 1993, Raina et al. 2005

Recent work in "classical" linguistic inference

  • Linguistic Inference using Description Logic Koller et al. 2004
  • Linguistic Inference with Model Generation Gardent&Konrad 2000
  • Linguistic Reasoning through distributed theorem proving Bos 2001, Blackburn et al. 1998

Deep linguistic information for RTE

  • Computing polarity of clauses Nairn et al. 2006
  • Logical Reasoning for Textual Entailment Tatu et al. 2006, Bos & Markert 2006
  • Do we need fine-grained logic-based specification of textual entailment? Zaenen et al. 2005, Manning 2006, Crouch et al. 2006
  • Exploiting structured semantic information for Textual Inference Burchardt et al. 2005, Burchardt et al. 2006

Further Topics in RTE

  • Graph Embedding Techniques for RTE
  • Paraphrases as a source for textual inference Lin&Pantel 2001, Bazilay&Lee 2003, Bannard et al. 2005

Workshops relevant for the seminar topic


  • Colin Bannard, Chris Callison-Burch: Paraphrasing with bilingual parallel corpora. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. 2005. PDF, Link
  • R. Barzilay, L. Lee: Learning to paraphrase: An unsupervised approach using multiple-sequence alignment. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology - Volume 1. PS, Link
  • P. Blackburn, J. Bos: Computational Semantics. Theoria 18, 27-45. 2003. PDF.
  • P. Blackburn, J. Bos, M. Kohlhase, H. de Nivelle: Automated Theorem Proving for Natural Language Understanding. CADE-15 Workshop. Problem-solving methodologies with Automated Deduction, 1998. PS
  • J. Bos: DORIS 2001: Underspecification, Resolution and Inference for Discourse Representation Structures. I/ICoS-3, 2001. PDF
  • J. Bos, K. Markert: When logical inference helps determining textual entailment (and when it doesn't). RTE-2, 2006. PDF
  • A. Burchardt, A. Frank and M. Pinkal: Building Text Meaning Representations from Contextually Related Frames - A Case Study. Proceedings of IWCS-6, 2005. PS
  • A. Burchardt and A. Frank: Approximating Textual Entailment with LFG and FrameNet Frames. RTE-2, 2006. PDF
  • Crouch, Karttunen, Zaenen: Circumscribing is not excluding: A response to Manning. PDF
  • C. Gardent, K. Konrad: Interpreting Definites Using Model Generation. Journal of Language and Computation, 1(2), pages 193-209, 2000. PS
  • J. Herrera, A. Penas, F. Verdejo: Textual Entailment Recognision Based on Dependency Analysis and WordNet, in: RTE-1, 2005
  • J. R. Hobbs, M. Stickel, P. Martin, D. Edwards: Interpretation as Abduction. Proc. of ACL 1988
  • J. R. Hobbs, M. Stickel, D. Appelt and P. Martin: Interpretation as Abduction. Artificial Intelligence 1993, Vol. 63, Nos. 1-2, pp. 69-142 PDF
  • V. Jijkoun and M. de Rijke Recognizing Textual Entailment Using Lexical Similarity, in: RTE-1, 2005
  • A. Koller, R. Debusmann, M. Gabsdil, and K. Striegnitz: Put my galakmid coin into the dispenser and kick it: Computational Linguistics and Theorem Proving in a Computer Game. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 2004. Link.
  • M. Kouylekov and B. Magnini: Recognizing Textual Entailment with Tree Edit Distance Algorithms, in: RTE-1, 2005
  • Manning: Local Textual Inference: It's hard to circumscribe, but you know it when you see it - and NLP needs it. Ms 2006. PDF
  • Ch. Monz and M. de Rijke: Light-Weight Entailment Checking for Computational Semantics, in: ICoS-3 2001. PDF
  • Nairn, Condoravdi, Karttunen: Computing relative polarity for textual inference. ICoS-5 2006. PDF
  • R. Raina, Andrew Y. Ng and C. Manning: Robust Textual Inference via learning and abductive reasoning. Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). 2005. PDF
  • D. Lin, P. Pantel: Discovery of inference rules for question-answering. Natural Language Engineering 7, 2001.
  • Tatu, Iles, Slavick, Novischi, Moldovani: COGEX at the Second Recognising Textual Entailment Challenge. RTE-2, 2006. PDF
  • A. Zaenen, L. Karttunen, R. Crouch: Local Textual Inference: can it be defined or circumscribed? ACL 2005. PDF