20min-XD: A Comparable Corpus of Swiss News Articles

Jannis Vamvas; Michelle Wastl; Rico Sennrich; Selena Calleri

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

20min-XD: A Comparable Corpus of Swiss News Articles

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read 20min-XD is a new public French-German comparable news corpus of about 15,000 article pairs from 2015–2024, automatically aligned by semantic similarity of titles and leads.

desk verdict A useful, honestly-reported French–German news comparable corpus, held back mainly by a thin 14-pair validation set behind the alignment choices. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21677 v1 pith:RPNTW3SH submitted 2025-04-30 cs.CL

Michelle Wastl , Jannis Vamvas , Selena Calleri , Rico Sennrich This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CL

keywords comparablecorpuscross-lingualdocumentalignmentGerman-FrenchnewsarticlessemanticsimilaritysentencemultilingualembeddingsSwissmedia

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

20min-XD is a French-German comparable news corpus built from a decade of Swiss online articles published by the same outlet in two languages. The paper's claim is that a fully automatic pipeline—embedding each article's title and lead, computing cosine similarity, and keeping only mutual best matches above a fixed threshold—produces roughly 15,000 usable document pairs that range from near-translations to loosely related same-event reports. The authors also release a sentence-aligned version with 117,126 aligned sentences per language, along with the code that built it. If the claim holds, NLP researchers gain a non-English-centred resource for cross-lingual retrieval, bitext mining, and machine-translation evaluation, and linguists get a natural window into how the same event is told in Switzerland's German and French editions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the intersection alignment strategy applied to multilingual sentence embeddings. Concretely, each article is reduced to its title and lead, embedded with paraphrase-multilingual-mpnet, and a French-German pair is accepted only when each article is the other's highest-scoring match and their cosine similarity passes threshold $\theta = 46$. The paper fits $\theta$ and chooses the model on a 14-pair validation set, then applies the same recipe to sentence alignment by embedding individual sentences and again requiring mutual best matches above 46. The paper's title-plus-lead trick makes the pipeline cheap enough to run on roughly 600,000 articles and avoids the length limits of several tested encoders.

What would settle it

Manually annotate a fresh random sample of, say, 100 article pairs drawn from different years of the released top-15k corpus, judging whether each pair truly reports the same event, and compare the true-positive rate with the 64.7% F1 measured on the single-day validation set. A substantially lower rate would show that the threshold and model fitted on one day do not generalize across the full 2015–2024 range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a corpus usually built with expensive manual annotation can instead be assembled from editorial workflows: the same publisher produces German and French versions of the same story, and their titles and leads carry enough signal to identify them automatically. On a manually labelled validation set of 14 article pairs from a single day, the strongest configuration uses the paraphrase-multilingual-mpnet embedding model with the 'intersection' alignment strategy—both the German article and the French article must rank each other as best match and exceed a cosine similarity threshold of 46. This configuration achieves F1 64.7 on the validation set and is then applied to 593,897 scraped articles, yielding 73,085 aligned pairs of which the top 15,000 are released. Analyses of the corpus show a right-skewed similarity distribution with a secondary peak around 80, and weak positive correlations between document similarity and sentence-level alignment ratio, sentence-length correlation, and monotonicity, supporting the paper's claim that the corpus spans a broad similarity spectrum rather than only close translations.

Load-bearing premise

The alignment model and the similarity threshold are chosen on a manually labelled set of just 14 article pairs from one single publication day, and the paper assumes that this tiny set represents all 73,000+ aligned pairs across ten years.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A public bilingual resource for French-German NLP now exists: document pairs and 117,126 sentence pairs can be used directly for bitext mining, cross-lingual retrieval, and machine-translation evaluation without new scraping.
Because pairs are same-day and same-publisher, the corpus supports comparative journalism and discourse studies on how German- and French-speaking regions of Switzerland frame the same event.
The weak correlation between document cosine similarity and sentence-level overlap means the released similarity scores should not be read as translation quality; users should treat high scores as 'closely related' rather than 'verbatim translation'.
The released sentence alignments, including below-threshold pairs, allow downstream tasks to distinguish shared versus divergent information in near-duplicate documents.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because alignment uses only title and lead, pairs whose headlines diverge but whose bodies are close—or vice versa—are likely underrepresented; a full-text similarity check on a random subsample would show how much signal the cheap pipeline discards.
The secondary peak in the similarity distribution near 80 may correspond to the publisher's internal transfer workflow, meaning the corpus could be used to infer which articles are carried over directly and which are rewritten for the other language region.
The single-day validation set means the threshold 46 was never tested on seasonal, topical, or year-specific formatting changes; a stratified validation across years would probably yield a different optimal threshold, and users should be cautious in applying 46 to other domains.
The below-threshold sentence alignments released alongside the corpus are a ready-made testbed for cross-lingual difference recognition, since they naturally contain sentences that are related but not translations.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know about arXiv:2504.21677. First, it delivers a genuinely new public resource: a French–German document-level comparable corpus of Swiss news articles with a sentence-aligned version, released with code. That fills a gap; the FR–DE pair is under-served in comparable corpora, and the 2015–2024 span is useful. Second, the alignment-quality evidence is thinner than the abstract implies. The embedding model and the similarity threshold are both chosen on a validation set of 14 article pairs from a single day, and the F1 differences between the top configurations are small enough that noise could be responsible. The authors acknowledge this, which is honest, but it remains the main soft spot.

What the paper does well: the pipeline is described clearly, the dataset artifact is concrete, and the qualitative examples in Table 3 give a good sense of the similarity spectrum. The choice to release all sentence-level pairs, not just those above the internal threshold, is thoughtful. The correlation studies are modest but fine as descriptive analysis. The paper does not oversell the method; it's a resource paper.

Soft spots, in proportion. The validation set is the load-bearing one. Fourteen positive pairs from one publication day is a narrow basis for selecting both a model and a threshold for a nine-year corpus. Editorial workflows could shift over time, and a fixed threshold of 46 might let in more false positives in earlier or later years. The authors note the small-sample risk, but they don't quantify it—no confidence intervals, no alternative thresholds tested on held-out days. The post-processing step removes 'faulty' pairs by manual inspection, but the criteria and scale are not reported, so it's hard to say how much it helps. There are also inconsistent numbers in the paper: the full alignment count appears as 73,085, 74,085, and 75,085 in different places (Section 4, Figure 2, Table 3 caption/§4.1). Minor, but annoying in a resource paper.

On balance, the central claim—that this is a useful comparable corpus spanning near-translations to loosely related articles—holds up. The resource itself is the contribution; the method is standard, and the validation weakness should be fixed in a revision, ideally by building a small but multi-day gold set and reporting confidence intervals.

Who is this for: anyone working on cross-lingual NLP, comparable corpora, or contrastive discourse between German and French. It deserves a serious refereeing; I would accept it for review with reservations, and would suggest the authors strengthen the empirical grounding before final acceptance.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 20min-XD, a French-German document-level comparable corpus of news articles from the Swiss outlet 20 Minuten/20 minutes, released with 15,000 article pairs in the public top-15k subset and a sentence-aligned version. The authors describe a fully automatic alignment pipeline that encodes article titles and leads with multilingual embedding models, applies an intersection-based one-to-one alignment strategy, and selects a similarity threshold by maximizing F1 on a manually annotated validation set of 14 article pairs from a single day. They then provide qualitative examples and quantitative correlation analyses between document similarity and sentence-level measures such as alignment ratio, sentence length correlation, and monotonicity. The dataset and code are publicly released.

Significance. If the alignment quality holds, 20min-XD fills a genuine gap: a publicly available French-German document-level comparable news corpus with a sentence-aligned version, spanning nearly a decade and covering a broad spectrum of cross-lingual similarity. The paper's strengths include the release of the dataset and code, a clearly described pipeline, an externally anchored validation set, and an honest discussion of its limitations. The qualitative examples and correlation studies are useful for downstream users, and the work is likely to be a valuable resource for cross-lingual NLP, machine translation, and comparative journalism research. However, the alignment quality is the central claim, and its justification currently rests on a very small validation set that may not support the choices made.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.1, 3.2, 3.3] The choice of embedding model and similarity threshold is made on a validation set of only 14 positive article pairs from a single publication day. In Table 2, the F1 difference between the best configuration (paraphrase-multilingual-mpnet, intersection, F1=64.7) and the runner-ups (gte-multilingual-base at 62.1, sentence-swissBERT at 62.5) is about two to three F1 points; with 14 gold pairs, this is roughly the difference of one or two correctly classified pairs and is well within the range of random fluctuation. Moreover, the threshold is optimized over 200 candidate values on the same set used to select the model, so the reported F1 is an optimistic estimate of out-of-sample performance. The paper acknowledges this in Section 3.3, but the issue is load-bearing because the corpus's value is conditional on alignment correctness. I ask the authors to provide confidence intervals or significance tests for the model comparison, and to evaluate the selected pipeline on an independently annotated sample, ideally stratified across the 2015-2024 period.
[Section 3.3 and 4] The fixed threshold θ=46 is selected on articles from a single day and then applied to the entire 2015-2024 corpus, but the paper provides no evidence that the similarity distribution or optimal threshold is stable over time. If editorial workflows or article-transfer practices changed across the nine years, a single threshold could yield substantially different precision and recall in early versus late years. I recommend a stratified manual evaluation (for example, 20-30 pairs per year sampled from the full output) with per-year precision/recall reported, or an explicit analysis of threshold stability across years. Without such evidence, the claim that the resulting 73,085 pairs are reliably aligned comparable articles is not fully supported.
[Section 3.6] The sentence-aligned version is a major part of the released resource (117,126 sentence pairs), but the sentence alignment threshold is inherited verbatim from the document-level experiments (θ=46) without any sentence-level validation. Sentence-embedding similarity distributions can differ substantially from title-lead document embeddings, so this threshold may not be appropriate for the sentence-level data. The release includes all sentence pairs above threshold, so the impact is partially mitigated, but the paper's description of the sentence-aligned version as a resource would be strengthened by at least a small manual evaluation of sentence alignment quality.
[Section 4, Figure 2, Section 4.1] The reported article counts are internally inconsistent. Section 4 states that the alignment process results in 74,507 article pairs and that post-processing reduces this to 73,085. Figure 2's caption refers to 'all 74,085 article pairs,' and Section 4.1 refers to 'all 75,085 initially aligned articles.' These numbers differ by hundreds and must be reconciled. This is a factual inconsistency that undermines the reader's confidence in the reported statistics and should be fixed with a careful audit of the pipeline counts.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] There is a typographical error: '20 Min uten' should be '20 Minuten'.
[Section 3.2.2] The term 'lead' is used throughout but never defined; a brief definition (the summary paragraph preceding the main body) would help readers unfamiliar with journalism terminology.
[Section 4.2.1] Figure 2 would be more informative with labeled axes and a clear indication of units; the current caption does not state what the x- and y-axes represent.
[Section 6] The conclusion says the dataset spans 'a ten-year period,' but the stated date range 01.01.2015 to 01.12.2024 is nine years and eleven months; consider saying 'nearly a decade' for consistency.
[Table 2] The threshold values for each configuration appear only in Appendix B, Table 4, but the main text does not refer to that table when discussing the results; adding a pointer would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the alignment pipeline is anchored by an external manual validation set, with only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central deliverable is a corpus constructed by an automatic alignment pipeline whose free parameters—the embedding model and the similarity threshold θ—are selected against a manually annotated validation set (Section 3.1, Table 2, Appendix B). The gold pairs are external to the pipeline, and the F1-based selection in Section 3.3 is a standard supervised model-selection procedure, not a quantity fitted on the target data and then renamed as a prediction. Section 3.6 reuses the same document-alignment model and threshold for sentence alignment; this propagates model biases and limits the independence of the corpus-wide similarity analyses, but it is an application choice rather than a step where a claimed result reduces to its own input by construction. The one author-overlapping citation (sentence-swissBERT, Grosjean and Vamvas 2024) is evaluated as a candidate and is not selected for the final pipeline (Table 2), so it is not load-bearing. The paper itself acknowledges the small validation set in Section 3.3; that is a robustness limitation, not a circular step. No equation or definition in the paper equates an output with an input, and the broad-spectrum claim is an empirical description of the released similarity distribution rather than a derived prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central pipeline relies on a fitted similarity threshold, a hand-set sentence length cutoff, and several domain assumptions about same-day publication, title-and-lead sufficiency, and the representativeness of the small validation set. No theoretical entities are invented.

free parameters (2)

similarity threshold theta = 46 (cosine score scaled to 0-100)
Chosen by grid search in steps of 0.5 to maximize F1 on the 14-pair validation set (Section 3.3). This threshold directly controls which article pairs and sentence pairs are considered aligned.
minimum sentence pair length = 30 characters
Sentence-level post-processing removes pairs with fewer than 30 characters (Section 3.6). This hand-set cutoff affects the released sentence alignment counts.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Cosine similarity between multilingual embeddings of titles and leads is a valid measure of cross-lingual article relatedness.
Section 3.2 uses cosine for alignment; validation F1 supports this indirectly, but the assumption is not independently tested against a larger gold standard.
domain assumption The 14 manually aligned validation pairs from a single day are representative of the full 2015-2024 corpus.
Sections 3.1 and 3.3 use this set for model selection and threshold fitting. If it is not representative, the chosen parameters may not transfer to other periods.
domain assumption Articles about the same event are published on the same calendar day in both languages.
Section 3.4 restricts matching to same-date articles, which would miss delayed or pre-dated coverage.
domain assumption Titles and leads alone are sufficient for document alignment.
Section 3.2 tests this on the validation set and adopts it for efficiency; full-text similarity is deferred to future work.
domain assumption The embedding model's sentence alignments are trustworthy enough for the corpus's sentence-level statistics.
Section 3.6 reuses the same model and threshold to create and analyze sentence alignments; errors in sentence alignment propagate into the correlation studies.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 20min-XD: A Comparable Corpus of Swiss News Articles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RPNTW3SH

@misc{pith2026250421677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 20min-XD: A Comparable Corpus of Swiss News Articles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RPNTW3SH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21677}
}

read the original abstract

We present 20min-XD (20 Minuten cross-lingual document-level), a French-German, document-level comparable corpus of news articles, sourced from the Swiss online news outlet 20 Minuten/20 minutes. Our dataset comprises around 15,000 article pairs spanning 2015 to 2024, automatically aligned based on semantic similarity. We detail the data collection process and alignment methodology. Furthermore, we provide a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the corpus. The resulting dataset exhibits a broad spectrum of cross-lingual similarity, ranging from near-translations to loosely related articles, making it valuable for various NLP applications and broad linguistically motivated studies. We publicly release the dataset in document- and sentence-aligned versions and code for the described experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21677 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** The document cosine similarities in compari [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** The document cosine similarities in com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

Mikel Artetxe and Holger Schwenk. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00288 Massively multilingual sentence embeddings for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer and beyond . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:597--610

doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00288 2019
[2]

Donal Carbaugh and Tovar Cerulli. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0117 Cultural Discourse Analysis

work page doi:10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0117 2017
[3]

Juri Grosjean and Jannis Vamvas. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.swisstext-1.4/ Fine-tuning the S wiss BERT encoder model for embedding sentences and documents . In Proceedings of the 9th edition of the Swiss Text Analytics Conference, pages 41--49, Chur, Switzerland. Association for Computational Linguistics

work page 2024
[4]

Katharina H \"a mmerl, Jind r ich Libovick \'y , and Alexander Fraser. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.649 Understanding cross-lingual A lignment --- A survey . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 10922--10943, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computational Linguistics

doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.649 2024
[5]

Thomas Hanitzsch. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.790 Comparative Journalism Research

arXiv 2019
[6]

Amey Hengle, Prasoon Bajpai, Soham Dan, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10151 Multilingual needle in a haystack: Investigating long-context behavior of multilingual large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2408.10151

arXiv 2024
[7]

Matthew Honnibal and Ines Montani. 2017. spaCy 2 : Natural language understanding with B loom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. To appear

2017
[8]

Masoud Jalili Sabet, Philipp Dufter, Fran c ois Yvon, and Hinrich Sch \"u tze. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.147 S im A lign: High quality word alignments without parallel training data using static and contextualized embeddings . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1627--1643, Online. As...

doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.147 2020

Show all 24 references

[9]

Tannon Kew, Marek Kostrzewa, and Sarah Ebling. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.swisstext-1.1/ 20 M inuten: A multi-task news summarisation dataset for G erman . In Proceedings of the 8th edition of the Swiss Text Analytics Conference, pages 1--13, Neuchatel, Switzerland. A...

2023
[10]

Mike Lewis, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Gargi Ghosh, Armen Aghajanyan, Sida Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/d6f1dd034aabde7657e6680444ceff62-Paper.pdf Pre-training via paraphrasing . In Advances in Neural Information Proce...

2020
[11]

Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00343 Multilingual denoising pre-training for neural machine translation . Transactions of the Association for Computational...

2020 doi
[12]

Fred Philippy, Siwen Guo, Jacques Klein, and Tegawende Bissyande. 2025. https://aclanthology.org/2025.coling-main.753/ L ux E mbedder: A cross-lingual approach to enhanced L uxembourgish sentence embeddings . In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational...

2025
[13]

Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084 Sentence- BERT : Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics

2019 arXiv
[14]

a uberli, Mathias M \

Annette Rios, Nicolas Spring, Tannon Kew, Marek Kostrzewa, Andreas S \"a uberli, Mathias M \"u ller, and Sarah Ebling. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.newsum-1.16 A new dataset and efficient baselines for document-level text simplification in G erman . In Proceedings of...

2021 doi
[15]

Yves Scherrer, Luka Nerima, Lorenza Russo, Maria Ivanova, and Eric Wehrli. 2014. https://aclanthology.org/L14-1602/ S wiss A dmin: A multilingual tagged parallel corpus of press releases . In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluatio...

2014
[16]

Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2020. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/file/c3a690be93aa602ee2dc0ccab5b7b67e-Paper.pdf MPNet : Masked and permuted pre-training for language understanding . In Advances in Neural Information Proce...

2020
[17]

Jannis Vamvas and Rico Sennrich. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.835 Towards unsupervised recognition of token-level semantic differences in related documents . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1...

2023 doi
[18]

e mi Aepli, Mathias M \

Martin Volk, Chantal Amrhein, No \" e mi Aepli, Mathias M \" u ller, and Phillip Str \" o bel. 2016. https://www.linguistics.rub.de/konvens16/pub/36\_konvensproc.pdf Building a parallel corpus on the world's oldest banking magazine . In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Na...

2016
[19]

Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Linjun Yang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.642 Improving text embeddings with large language models . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguisti...

2024 doi
[20]

Benjamin Warner, Antoine Chaffin, Benjamin Clavié, Orion Weller, Oskar Hallström, Said Taghadouini, Alexis Gallagher, Raja Biswas, Faisal Ladhak, Tom Aarsen, Nathan Cooper, Griffin Adams, Jeremy Howard, and Iacopo Poli. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.13663 Smarter, better, f...

2024 arXiv
[21]

Xin Zhang, Yanzhao Zhang, Dingkun Long, Wen Xie, Ziqi Dai, Jialong Tang, Huan Lin, Baosong Yang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Meishan Zhang, Wenjie Li, and Min Zhang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-industry.103 mGTE : Generalized long-context text representation and r...

2024 doi
[22]

Pierre Zweigenbaum, Serge Sharoff, and Reinhard Rapp. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-2512 Overview of the second BUCC shared task: Spotting parallel sentences in comparable corpora . In Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Building and Using Comparable Corpora, pages 60-...

2017 doi
[23]

online" 'onlinestring :=

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...
[24]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Mikel Artetxe and Holger Schwenk. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00288 Massively multilingual sentence embeddings for zero-shot cross-lingual transfer and beyond . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:597--610

doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00288 2019

[2] [2]

Donal Carbaugh and Tovar Cerulli. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0117 Cultural Discourse Analysis

work page doi:10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0117 2017

[3] [3]

Juri Grosjean and Jannis Vamvas. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.swisstext-1.4/ Fine-tuning the S wiss BERT encoder model for embedding sentences and documents . In Proceedings of the 9th edition of the Swiss Text Analytics Conference, pages 41--49, Chur, Switzerland. Association for Computational Linguistics

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Katharina H \"a mmerl, Jind r ich Libovick \'y , and Alexander Fraser. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.649 Understanding cross-lingual A lignment --- A survey . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 10922--10943, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computational Linguistics

doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.649 2024

[5] [5]

Thomas Hanitzsch. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.790 Comparative Journalism Research

arXiv 2019

[6] [6]

Amey Hengle, Prasoon Bajpai, Soham Dan, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10151 Multilingual needle in a haystack: Investigating long-context behavior of multilingual large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2408.10151

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Matthew Honnibal and Ines Montani. 2017. spaCy 2 : Natural language understanding with B loom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. To appear

2017

[8] [8]

Masoud Jalili Sabet, Philipp Dufter, Fran c ois Yvon, and Hinrich Sch \"u tze. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.147 S im A lign: High quality word alignments without parallel training data using static and contextualized embeddings . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1627--1643, Online. As...

doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.147 2020