Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Density Matrices with Metric for Derivational Ambiguity

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a metric to density-matrix semantics lets one representation carry both word senses and alternative phrase bracketings, with each reading in its own subspace.

desk verdict Promising framework with an overstated headline: the metric does no work in the paper's own derivational-ambiguity example, though the subsystem treatment is a genuine addition. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07347 v3 pith:Y3QNVRSA submitted 2019-08-20 cs.CL quant-ph

Adriana D. Correia , Michael Moortgat , Henk T. C. Stoof This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLquant-ph MSC 03B6568T50
keywords densitymatricesderivationalambiguitylexicalcompositionalsemanticsdirectionallambdacalculuscategorialgrammarmetrictensorcontraction
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

The paper tries to make one semantic representation carry both kinds of ambiguity natural language displays: a single word with several senses (lexical ambiguity) and a single string with more than one grammatical bracketing (derivational ambiguity). To do this it replaces the earlier type-logical front end with a directional categorial grammar and adds to the semantic vector spaces a metric, a symmetric non-degenerate bilinear form that identifies each space with its dual. With that metric, a word's 'take an argument from the left' versus 'from the right' grammatical role becomes a property of the tensor components of its meaning. The paper shows on the phrase 'tall person from Spain' that the two bracketings receive different density-matrix coefficients and, after assigning words to subsystems, live in independent subspaces. If the construction is right, lexical and derivational ambiguity can be resolved at the interpretation level instead of by choosing one parse in advance.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the metric $d=\sum_{j,j'}d_{jj'}\,\hat e^j\otimes \hat e^{j'}$, a symmetric non-degenerate bilinear form whose inverse raises and lowers tensor indices, together with the directional density-matrix spaces it defines, $\tilde V=V\otimes V^*$ and $\tilde V^*=V\otimes V^*$. The metric supplies a canonical isomorphism $V\cong V^*$; lifting it to density matrices gives covariant and contravariant components, so that a word's selection direction is visible in which factor of its type is dual. The compositional interpretation of a grammatical derivation is a $\lambda$-term of the directional $\lambda$ calculus, read as a recipe of tensor contractions (traces) over the correct subsystems. Permutation operators, applied before traces, reassign subsystem labels and thereby move a phrase from one bracketing's reading to another while keeping the readings in independent subspaces.

What would settle it

Take a fixed set of word pairs, two different embedding models, and human similarity ratings for those pairs, and solve for a symmetric non-degenerate matrix $d$ such that the normalized inner products $d(v,w)/\sqrt{d(v,v)d(w,w)}$ reproduce the human ratings for every pair; if no such $d$ exists for a realistic set, the reconciliation premise on which the framework rests is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a metric-equipped density-matrix semantics can be directional: types are interpreted as spaces $\lceil A/B\rceil = \lceil A\rceil\otimes\lceil B\rceil^*$ and $\lceil A\backslash B\rceil = \lceil A\rceil^*\otimes\lceil B\rceil$, so the distinction between left and right implication is preserved in the meaning space, not erased by a commutative interpretation. The metric $d$ gives the canonical passage from vectors to dual vectors, and hence from the data's static or contextual embeddings to the contractions that assemble phrase meanings. Because contractions are performed by traces over designated subsystems, and because permutation operators take precedence over traces, an ambiguous phrase can keep each reading in its own subsystem; the paper's worked example shows the two readings of 'tall person from Spain' have different coefficients and can be moved from one to the other by permutations. The paper concludes that this integrates lexical ambiguity, already modelled with density matrices, and derivational ambiguity, which previously required choosing a parse, at the level of interpretation.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that for each target quantity, such as a human similarity rating, there is a way of measuring vector distance that stays fixed when the vectors change representation; the paper only illustrates this with a single two-dimensional case and does not show that such a fixed measure always exists.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single density-matrix representation can carry both lexical senses and multiple syntactic readings, so an ambiguous phrase does not need to be parsed before meaning assembly.
  • Static and contextual embeddings become related by a metric: if the metric preserves a target value such as a human similarity rating, one embedding per word is enough.
  • The direction of grammatical selection (left vs. right implication) is encoded in the semantics and survives composition, which the paper's soundness argument guarantees for every derivation.
  • Permutation operators let an interpretation move from one reading to another without redoing the derivation, while the two readings remain in separate subsystems for later composition.
  • The framework opens an incremental reading of ambiguity: because meanings stay separated in subsystems, later material can combine with one reading without collapsing the other.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the metric itself could be learned: fitting $d$ to a similarity-judgement dataset and checking whether one global metric survives across domains would turn the reconciliation claim into a testable model.
  • The subsystem-plus-permutation picture suggests a direct analogue of quantum entanglement: two readings are independent subspaces that do not interact, so a natural next experiment is whether human processing difficulty tracks the point where a permutation moves a reading into a new subsystem.
  • Although the paper demonstrates only noun-phrase attachment, the same trace-and-permutation recipe appears to apply to quantifier-scope ambiguities and other structural ambiguities with more than one bracketing.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a density-matrix semantics for a Lambek categorial grammar fragment, replacing the pregroup front end of prior DisCoCat work with the directional type logic (N)L/,\, interpreted through the Curry-Howard correspondence with the ordered linear lambda calculus. The authors introduce a symmetric nondegenerate metric to relate a vector space to its dual, use it to define 'directional' density matrix spaces, and claim that this setup models derivational ambiguity. The central worked example is the phrase 'tall person from Spain', for which two bracketings are claimed to yield different density-matrix coefficients that, with subsystem assignments and permutation operators, live in independent subspaces. The paper also argues that the metric reconciles static and dynamic word embeddings by preserving a quantity such as a human similarity judgment across changes of representation.

Significance. If the construction were fully established, the paper would contribute a principled syntax-semantics interface for density-matrix semantics with explicit left/right directionality, and it would offer a mechanism for keeping multiple derivational readings formally separate. The paper has clear strengths: it gives an explicit tensor-calculus treatment with a metric, spells out the Curry-Howard correspondence for (N)L/,\, and works through a nontrivial example in detail. It also honestly locates the main open problems, such as the need for an existence argument for the metric and for treating incremental readings. However, the significance is currently limited: the metric is absent from the derivational-ambiguity calculation, the claimed soundness is not proved, and the notation for the basic density-matrix spaces is inconsistent. The central contribution of the paper is therefore not yet demonstrated in its own example.

major comments (5)
  1. [§6, eqs. (54)–(58)] The metric d does not appear in any of the computed interpretations in the derivational-ambiguity example. The two readings are distinguished only by the order of traces, the subsystem labels N1,N2,N3, and the permutation operators P23 and P13; replacing d by the identity leaves every displayed equation in §6 unchanged. The final paragraph of §6 states that the metric is needed to turn data vectors into covariant/contravariant tensors, but that is a preprocessing step independent of the ambiguity mechanism. Since the abstract and §7 present the metric as the enabling device for modeling derivational ambiguity, the paper's own example does not support that claim. Please either add a computation in which the metric affects the contracted outcome, or revise the claims so that the metric is credited only with constructing the tensor representations.
  2. [§4 and §6 lexicon table] The basic density-matrix space is defined inconsistently. Section 4 defines \tilde V ≡ V⊗V* (text after eq. (28)), while the lexicon table in §6 assigns all primitive types to N*⊗N and the type n/n to N*⊗N⊗(N*⊗N)*. Equations (54)–(58) then use basis elements such as |m⟩_{N}⟨m′| and |j′/i⟩_{N⊗N*}⟨j/i′|, which are written for N⊗N*, not for N*⊗N. This makes the worked example hard to verify and obscures the directionality the framework is meant to provide. The definitions of \tilde N, \tilde N*, and the order of tensor factors should be fixed and used consistently throughout.
  3. [§3, eqs. (20)–(21)] The paper motivates the metric by saying that, given a human similarity judgement, one can ask what metric preserves it across different representations, but it gives no existence or uniqueness argument. The toy example simply chooses the matrix in eq. (20) by hand to match the single target value 1/√10. For a realistic dataset, the number of pairwise similarity constraints generally exceeds the number of independent components of a symmetric metric (n(n+1)/2 for an n-dimensional space), and the required basis changes add further constraints. Without a statement of the conditions under which such a metric exists, the reconciliation of static and dynamic embeddings remains an ungrounded premise. At minimum, the construction should be presented as conditional on the existence of the metric, or an existence theorem for finite data sets should be supplied.
  4. [§5, eqs. (45)–(53)] The text says 'Below we show that this calculus is sound' but no soundness theorem or proof is given. The interpretation clauses are stated case-by-case, yet there is no induction on derivations, no discussion of well-definedness of the introduction rules (which range over the family of assignments g^x_{kk'}), and no treatment of βη-equality for the directional lambda terms. Since the paper's second aim is to read λ/,\ programs as compositional meaning assembly, a precise soundness statement and proof are necessary to establish that the interpretation is a homomorphism on derivations.
  5. [§6, eqs. (54)–(55)] Even setting aside the role of the metric, the example does not establish that the two bracketing readings are semantically distinguished. Equations (54) and (55) produce two generally different coefficient arrays, but the paper gives no criterion by which these arrays represent the readings 'tall person from Spain' and 'tall (person from Spain)'—for instance, a measure of meaning, a test of entailment, or a comparison with human judgments. Without such a criterion, the claim that derivational ambiguity is modeled rests on index bookkeeping rather than on a demonstrable semantic difference. The authors should define what it means for a density matrix to realize one reading or the other.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'alows' should be 'allows'.
  2. [§4, eq. (28)] The trace calculation contains an erroneous sum: Tr(|i⟩⟨i′|·|j′⟩⟨j|) should equal ⟨j|i⟩⟨i′|j′⟩ = δ^i_j δ^{j′}_{i′}, without the extra sum over j,j′ and without the extra deltas that appear in the displayed formula.
  3. [§4, eqs. (33)–(34)] The notation |j′/i⟩ is never explicitly defined; it appears to mean |j′⟩_A ⊗ |i⟩_{B*}, but the order of factors should be stated once and used consistently.
  4. [§6, eq. (58)] The action of the permutation operators in eq. (58) is written with P13 and P23 interleaved with the tensors, but the algebraic identities used to move the permutations past the traces are not derived; a short derivation would improve readability.
  5. [§7] Typo: 'Additionaly' should be 'Additionally'.
  6. [§3, eqs. (20)–(22)] The displayed matrices in eqs. (20)–(22) use a stray '{' delimiter; this appears to be a LaTeX artifact and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivational ambiguity computation uses fixed word tensors and trace contractions, and the metric is introduced as an explicit modeling choice rather than a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not derive an empirical output from a parameter that was fitted to that output. The metric is introduced in Section 3 as a bilinear form that may be chosen to preserve a target similarity value; the paper is explicit that this is a design question ('given a certain human judgement ... what is the metric that preserves it?') and the toy example proceeds by 'Assuming a metric' (eq. 20), then shows that it reproduces the previously computed cosine value. This is an illustration of a framework, not a fitted input disguised as a prediction. In the central ambiguity example (Section 6), the interpretations are computed from fixed lexical tensors T, P, F using the trace and contraction rules; equations (54)-(58) contain no fitted parameters. The paper itself concedes that 'the metric is not used explicitly in the application of the permutation operators,' explaining only that it is needed to form the covariant/contravariant tensors in the first place. That is a gap between the headline claim and the worked example, but it is a matter of evidentiary support, not circularity. The only self-citation, [6] for modal extensions of (N)L/\ in footnote 1, is peripheral and not load-bearing for the central derivation. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that its outputs are obtained by calculation from stated inputs; therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework imports standard linear algebra and density matrix concepts but adds the metric and subsystem structure as free assumptions. The metric is the main free parameter; no data is fitted. No new physical or linguistic entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • metric d = example d = [[2,1],[1,5]]
    Section 3, eq. 20: the metric is chosen by hand to reproduce the target cosine similarity 1/sqrt(10). No canonical or fitted value is given for real data; the framework treats it as an adjustable structure.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Finite-dimensional real vector spaces with a symmetric nondegenerate bilinear form (metric) exist and are the semantic spaces.
    Assumed throughout Sections 3-6; follows from standard tensor calculus (Wald [28]).
  • domain assumption Density matrices are elements of \tilde V = V⊗V* with the trace as dual pairing.
    Section 4; this is a modeling choice inherited from quantum-inspired semantics (Piedeleu, Sadrzadeh).
  • domain assumption The Curry-Howard interpretation of (N)L/,\ derivations into the density matrix semantics is sound.
    Section 5 states soundness without a full proof; the paper provides only example evaluations.
  • ad hoc to paper Subsystems are non-interacting copies of the same space, and permutation operators precede traces.
    Sections 4-6: needed to keep readings separate; no independent justification beyond the intended application.
  • ad hoc to paper For any target similarity value, a metric preserving it across representations exists.
    Sections 3 and 7; no existence proof given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Density Matrices with Metric for Derivational Ambiguity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y3QNVRSA

@misc{pith2026190807347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Density Matrices with Metric for Derivational Ambiguity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y3QNVRSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07347}
}
read the original abstract

Recent work on vector-based compositional natural language semantics has proposed the use of density matrices to model lexical ambiguity and (graded) entailment (e.g. Piedeleu et al 2015, Bankova et al 2019, Sadrzadeh et al 2018). Ambiguous word meanings, in this work, are represented as mixed states, and the compositional interpretation of phrases out of their constituent parts takes the form of a strongly monoidal functor sending the derivational morphisms of a pregroup syntax to linear maps in FdHilb. Our aims in this paper are threefold. Firstly, we replace the pregroup front end by a Lambek categorial grammar with directional implications expressing a word's selectional requirements. By the Curry-Howard correspondence, the derivations of the grammar's type logic are associated with terms of the (ordered) linear lambda calculus; these terms can be read as programs for compositional meaning assembly with density matrices as the target semantic spaces. Secondly, we extend on the existing literature and introduce a symmetric, nondegenerate bilinear form called a "metric" that defines a canonical isomorphism between a vector space and its dual, allowing us to keep a distinction between left and right implication. Thirdly, we use this metric to define density matrix spaces in a directional form, modeling the ubiquitous derivational ambiguity of natural language syntax, and show how this alows an integrated treatment of lexical and derivational forms of ambiguity controlled at the level of the interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07347 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proofs as programs for (N)L/,\. types (say s, np, n for sentences, noun phrases, common nouns) for complete expressions and implicational types A\B, B/A for incomplete expressions, selecting an A argument to the left (resp. right) to form a B. Ignoring the term labeling for a moment, judgments are of the form Γ ` A, where the antecedent Γ is a non-empty list (for L) or bracketed list (NL) of formulas, and the succed… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representation of contractions corresponding to the first reading (lower links) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Representation of contractions corresponding to the first reading (lower links) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Graded hyponymy for composi- tional distributional semantics.Journal of Language Modelling, 6(2):225–260, 2019

    Dea Bankova, Bob Coecke, Martha Lewis, and Dan Marsden. Graded hyponymy for composi- tional distributional semantics.Journal of Language Modelling, 6(2):225–260, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Semantic composition inspired by quantum measurement

    William Blacoe. Semantic composition inspired by quantum measurement. InInternational Symposium on Quantum Interaction, pages 41–53. Springer, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Multimodaldistributionalsemantics

    EliaBruni, Nam-KhanhTran, andMarcoBaroni. Multimodaldistributionalsemantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 49:1–47, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Vector space models of lexical meaning.Handbook of Contemporary Semantics, 10:9781118882139, 2015

    Stephen Clark. Vector space models of lexical meaning.Handbook of Contemporary Semantics, 10:9781118882139, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Mathematical foundations for a com- positional distributional model of meaning.Lambek Festschrift, Linguistic Analysis 36(1–4), pages 345–384, 2010

    Bob Coecke, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh, and Stephen Clark. Mathematical foundations for a com- positional distributional model of meaning.Lambek Festschrift, Linguistic Analysis 36(1–4), pages 345–384, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Putting a Spin on Language: A Quantum Interpretation of Unary Connectives for Linguistic Applications

    AD Correia, HTC Stoof, and M Moortgat. Putting a spin on language: A quantum inter- pretation of unary connectives for linguistic applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04128, 2020

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. InProceedings of the 2019 Confer- ence of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186, Minneapoli...

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Introduction to tensor calculus.Kees Dullemond and Kasper Peeters, 1991

    Kees Dullemond and Kasper Peeters. Introduction to tensor calculus.Kees Dullemond and Kasper Peeters, 1991

    work page 1991

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Lie algebras in particle physics

    Howard Georgi. Lie algebras in particle physics. from isospin to unified theories.Front. Phys., 54:1–255, 1982

    1982

  2. [10]

    Experimental support for a categorical com- positional distributional model of meaning

    Edward Grefenstette and Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh. Experimental support for a categorical com- positional distributional model of meaning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1394–1404. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    Distributional structure.Word, 10(2-3):146–162, 1954

    Zellig S Harris. Distributional structure.Word, 10(2-3):146–162, 1954

    1954

  4. [12]

    Janssen and Barbara H

    Theo M.V. Janssen and Barbara H. Partee. Chapter 7 - Compositionality. In Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, editors,Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 417 – 473. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1997

    1997

  5. [13]

    The mathematics of sentence structure

    Joachim Lambek. The mathematics of sentence structure. The American Mathematical Monthly, 65(3):154–170, 1958

    1958

  6. [14]

    On the calculus of syntactic types

    Joachim Lambek. On the calculus of syntactic types. In Roman Jakobson, editor,Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects, volume XII ofProceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, pages 166–178. American Mathematical Society, 1961

    1961

  7. [15]

    Distributed repre- sentations of words and phrases and their compositionality

    Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. Distributed repre- sentations of words and phrases and their compositionality. InAdvances in neural information processing systems, pages 3111–3119, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    Composition in distributional models of semantics.Cognitive science, 34(8):1388–1429, 2010

    Jeff Mitchell and Mirella Lapata. Composition in distributional models of semantics.Cognitive science, 34(8):1388–1429, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    Chapter 2 - Categorial type logics

    Michael Moortgat. Chapter 2 - Categorial type logics. In Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, editors,Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 93–177. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997

    1997

  10. [18]

    Springer, 2012

    Richard Moot and Christian Retoré.The logic of categorial grammars: a deductive account of natural language syntax and semantics, volume 6850. Springer, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    Quantum computation and quantum information, 2002

    Michael A Nielsen and Isaac Chuang. Quantum computation and quantum information, 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    Glove: Global vectors for word representation

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532–1543, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Deep contextualized word representations

    Matthew Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human L...

    2018

  14. [22]

    PhD thesis, University of Oxford Master’s thesis, 2014

    Robin Piedeleu.Ambiguity in categorical models of meaning. PhD thesis, University of Oxford Master’s thesis, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Open system categorical quantum semantics in natural language processing.CoRR, abs/1502.00831, 2015

    Robin Piedeleu, Dimitri Kartsaklis, Bob Coecke, and Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh. Open system categorical quantum semantics in natural language processing.CoRR, abs/1502.00831, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sentence entailment in composi- tional distributional semantics.Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 82(4):189– 218, 2018

    Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh, Dimitri Kartsaklis, and Esma Balkır. Sentence entailment in composi- tional distributional semantics.Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 82(4):189– 218, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Applied linear algebra: The decoupling principle

    LorenzoAdlaiSadun. Applied linear algebra: The decoupling principle. AmericanMathematical Soc., 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    Dagger compact closed categories and completely positive maps.Electronic 23 Correia, Moortgat and Stoof Notes in Theoretical computer science, 170:139–163, 2007

    Peter Selinger. Dagger compact closed categories and completely positive maps.Electronic 23 Correia, Moortgat and Stoof Notes in Theoretical computer science, 170:139–163, 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    The semantics of variety in categorial grammar

    Johan van Benthem. The semantics of variety in categorial grammar. Technical Report 83- 29, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby (B.C.), 1983. Revised version in W. Buszkowski, W. Marciszewski and J. van Benthem (eds) Categorial grammar, Benjamin, Amsterdam

    1983

  20. [28]

    General relativity.University of Chicago Press, 1984

    Robert M Wald. General relativity.University of Chicago Press, 1984

    1984

  21. [29]

    Formulas-as-types for a hierarchy of sublogics of intuitionistic propositional logic

    Heinrich Wansing. Formulas-as-types for a hierarchy of sublogics of intuitionistic propositional logic. In David Pearce and Heinrich Wansing, editors,Nonclassical Logics and Information Processing, pages 125–145, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    1992

  22. [30]

    Evaluating composition models for verb phrase elliptical sentence embeddings

    Gijs Wijnholds and Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh. Evaluating composition models for verb phrase elliptical sentence embeddings. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Lon...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.