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++. (shrink)

We propose an approach to natural language inference based on a model of natural logic, which identifies valid inferences by their lexical and syntactic features, without full semantic interpretation. We greatly extend past work in natural logic, which has focused solely on semantic containment and monotonicity, to incorporate both semantic exclusion and implicativity. Our system decomposes an inference problem into a sequence of atomic edits linking premise to hypothesis; predicts a lexical entailment relation for each edit using a statistical classifier; (...) propagates these relations upward through a syntax tree according to semantic properties of intermediate nodes; and composes the resulting entailment relations across the edit sequence. We evaluate our system on the FraCaS test suite, and achieve a 27% reduction in error from previous work. We also show that hybridizing an existing RTE system with our natural logic system yields significant gains on the RTE3 test suite. (shrink)

Existing evaluation metrics for machine translation lack crucial robustness: their correlations with human quality judgments vary considerably across languages and genres. We believe that the main reason is their inability to properly capture meaning: A good translation candidate means the same thing as the reference translation, regardless of formulation. We propose a metric that evaluates MT output based on a rich set of features motivated by textual entailment, such as lexical-semantic (in-)compatibility and argument structure overlap. We compare this metric against (...) a combination metric of four state-of-theart scores (BLEU, NIST, TER, and METEOR) in two different settings. The combination metric outperforms the individual scores, but is bested by the entailment-based metric. Combining the entailment and traditional features yields further improvements. (shrink)

We propose a model of natural language inference which identifies valid inferences by their lexical and syntactic features, without full semantic interpretation. We extend past work in natural logic, which has focused on semantic containment and monotonicity, by incorporating both semantic exclusion and implicativity. Our model decomposes an inference problem into a sequence of atomic edits linking premise to hypothesis; predicts a lexical semantic relation for each edit; propagates these relations upward through a semantic composition tree according to properties of (...) intermediate nodes; and joins the resulting semantic relations across the edit sequence. A computational implementation of the model achieves 70% accuracy and 89% precision on the FraCaS test suite. Moreover, including this model as a component in an existing system yields significant performance gains on the Recognizing Textual Entailment challenge. (shrink)

mentation for languages such as Chinese. Almost no NLP task is truly standalone. The end-to-end performance of natural Most current systems for higher-level, aggre-.

Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Anna N. Rafferty and Christopher D. Manning Linguistics Department Computer Science Department Stanford University Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 Stanford, CA 94305 {rafferty,manning}@stanford.edu [email protected]..