Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Comparison of Semantic Similarity Methods for Maximum Human Interpretability

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 1910.09129 v2 pith:F4OXCVUK submitted 2019-10-21 cs.IR cs.CLcs.LG

classification cs.IRcs.CLcs.LG
keywords similaritycosinemethodssemanticinformationtextsembeddinghuman
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The inclusion of semantic information in any similarity measures improves the efficiency of the similarity measure and provides human interpretable results for further analysis. The similarity calculation method that focuses on features related to the text's words only, will give less accurate results. This paper presents three different methods that not only focus on the text's words but also incorporates semantic information of texts in their feature vector and computes semantic similarities. These methods are based on corpus-based and knowledge-based methods, which are: cosine similarity using tf-idf vectors, cosine similarity using word embedding and soft cosine similarity using word embedding. Among these three, cosine similarity using tf-idf vectors performed best in finding similarities between short news texts. The similar texts given by the method are easy to interpret and can be used directly in other information retrieval applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Basis Vector Metric: A Method for Robust Open-Ended State Change Detection

    cs.CL 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A simple trained basis-vector metric achieves 66.14% average accuracy on MIT-States noun-adjective classification, 0.91 points above Naive Bayes, but fails to beat logistic regression on adjective disambiguation.

Pith tools