Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Text Similarity in Vector Space Models: A Comparative Study

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1810.00664 v1 pith:4EYEFFE7 submitted 2018-09-24 cs.CL cs.LGstat.ML

classification cs.CLcs.LGstat.ML
keywords modelssimilaritytexttfidfextensionssemanticspacetask
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Automatic measurement of semantic text similarity is an important task in natural language processing. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of different vector space models to perform this task. We address the real-world problem of modeling patent-to-patent similarity and compare TFIDF (and related extensions), topic models (e.g., latent semantic indexing), and neural models (e.g., paragraph vectors). Contrary to expectations, the added computational cost of text embedding methods is justified only when: 1) the target text is condensed; and 2) the similarity comparison is trivial. Otherwise, TFIDF performs surprisingly well in other cases: in particular for longer and more technical texts or for making finer-grained distinctions between nearest neighbors. Unexpectedly, extensions to the TFIDF method, such as adding noun phrases or calculating term weights incrementally, were not helpful in our context.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. GenAI-Enabled Backlog Grooming in Agile Software Projects: An Empirical Study

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A human-in-the-loop GenAI Jira tool found duplicate backlog items with 100 percent precision and roughly 45 percent less time per duplicate in a five-person study.

Pith tools