A Survey of Paraphrasing and Textual Entailment Methods

Paraphrasing methods recognize, generate, or extract phrases, sentences, or longer natural language expressions that convey almost the same information. Textual entailment methods, on the other hand, recognize, generate, or extract pairs of natural language expressions, such that a human who reads (and trusts) the first element of a pair would most likely infer that the other element is also true. Paraphrasing can be seen as bidirectional textual entailment and methods from the two areas are often similar. Both kinds of methods are useful, at least in principle, in a wide range of natural language processing applications, including question answering, summarization, text generation, and machine translation. We summarize key ideas from the two areas by considering in turn recognition, generation, and extraction methods, also pointing to prominent articles and resources.Comment: Technical Report, Natural Language Processing Group, Department of Informatics, Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece, 201

LabelTranslator: A Tool to Automatically Localize an Ontology

This demo proposal briefly presents LabelTranslator, a system that suggests translations of ontology labels, with the purpose of localizing ontologies. LabelTranslator takes as input an ontology whose labels are described in a source natural language and obtains the most probable translation of each ontology label into a target natural language.Our main contribution is the automatization of this process, which reduces human efforts to localize manually the ontology

Analysing and Comparing Encodability Criteria

Encodings or the proof of their absence are the main way to compare process calculi. To analyse the quality of encodings and to rule out trivial or meaningless encodings, they are augmented with quality criteria. There exists a bunch of different criteria and different variants of criteria in order to reason in different settings. This leads to incomparable results. Moreover it is not always clear whether the criteria used to obtain a result in a particular setting do indeed fit to this setting. We show how to formally reason about and compare encodability criteria by mapping them on requirements on a relation between source and target terms that is induced by the encoding function. In particular we analyse the common criteria full abstraction, operational correspondence, divergence reflection, success sensitiveness, and respect of barbs; e.g. we analyse the exact nature of the simulation relation (coupled simulation versus bisimulation) that is induced by different variants of operational correspondence. This way we reduce the problem of analysing or comparing encodability criteria to the better understood problem of comparing relations on processes.Comment: In Proceedings EXPRESS/SOS 2015, arXiv:1508.06347. The Isabelle/HOL source files, and a full proof document, are available in the Archive of Formal Proofs, at http://afp.sourceforge.net/entries/Encodability_Process_Calculi.shtm

Self-similar tiling systems, topological factors and stretching factors

In this paper we prove that if two self-similar tiling systems, with respective stretching factors $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, have a common factor which is a non periodic tiling system, then $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are multiplicatively dependent

An order-theoretic analysis of interpretations among propositional deductive systems

In this paper we study interpretations and equivalences of propositional deductive systems by using a quantale-theoretic approach introduced by Galatos and Tsinakis. Our aim is to provide a general order-theoretic framework which is able to describe and characterize both strong and weak forms of interpretations among propositional deductive systems also in the cases where the systems have different underlying languages

Translating and Evolving: Towards a Model of Language Change in DisCoCat

The categorical compositional distributional (DisCoCat) model of meaning developed by Coecke et al. (2010) has been successful in modeling various aspects of meaning. However, it fails to model the fact that language can change. We give an approach to DisCoCat that allows us to represent language models and translations between them, enabling us to describe translations from one language to another, or changes within the same language. We unify the product space representation given in (Coecke et al., 2010) and the functorial description in (Kartsaklis et al., 2013), in a way that allows us to view a language as a catalogue of meanings. We formalize the notion of a lexicon in DisCoCat, and define a dictionary of meanings between two lexicons. All this is done within the framework of monoidal categories. We give examples of how to apply our methods, and give a concrete suggestion for compositional translation in corpora.Comment: In Proceedings CAPNS 2018, arXiv:1811.0270