SlowGuess/ACL_2020_OCR huggingface dataset:
Zihang Dai, Zhilin Yang, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Quoc Le, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2019. Transformer-XL: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2978-2988, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics.
G.A. Darbellay and I. Vajda. 1999. Estimation of the information by an adaptive partitioning of the observation space. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 45(4):1315-1321.
Cedric De Boom, Steven Van Canneyt, Thomas Demeester, and Bart Dhoedt. 2016. Representation learning for very short texts using weighted word embedding aggregation. Pattern Recogn. Lett., 80(C):150-156.
Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.
Bradley Efron. 1987. Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(397):171-185.
Andrew M. Fraser and Harry L. Swinney. 1986. Independent coordinates for strange attractors from mutual information. Phys. Rev. A, 33:1134-1140.
Shuyang Gao, Greg Ver Steeg, and Aram Galstyan. 2015. Efficient Estimation of Mutual Information for Strongly Dependent Variables. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 38 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 277-286, San Diego, California, USA. PMLR.
W. Gao, S. Oh, and P. Viswanath. 2018. Demystifying fixed  $k$ -nearest neighbor information estimators. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 64(8):5629-5661.
Arthur Gretton, Olivier Bousquet, Alex Smola, and Bernhard Scholkopf. 2005. Measuring statistical dependence with hilbert-schmidt norms. In International conference on algorithmic learning theory, pages 63-77. Springer.
Felix Hill, Kyunghyun Cho, and Anna Korhonen. 2016. Learning distributed representations of sentences from unlabelled data. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1367-1377. Association for Computational Linguistics.
R Devon Hjelm, Alex Fedorov, Samuel Lavoie-Marchildon, Karan Grewal, Phil Bachman, Adam Trischler, and Yoshua Bengio. 2019. Learning deep representations by mutual information estimation and maximization. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
Gao Huang, Chuan Quo, Matt J. Kusner, Yu Sun, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Fei Sha. 2016. Supervised word mover's distance. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'16, pages 4869-4877, USA. Curran Associates Inc.
Robin A.A. Ince, Bruno L. Giordano, Christoph Kayser, Guillaume A. Rousselet, Joachim Gross, and Philippe G. Schyns. 2016. A statistical framework for neuroimaging data analysis based on mutual information estimated via a gaussian copula. Human Brain Mapping, 38(3):1541-1573.
Sergio Jimenez, Fabio Gonzalez, and Alexander Gelbukh. 2010. Text comparison using soft cardinality. In *String Processing and Information Retrieval*, pages 297-302, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Sergio Jimenez, Fabio A. Gonzalez, and Alexander Gelbukh. 2015. Soft cardinality in semantic text processing: Experience of the SemEval international competitions. *Polibits*, 51:63-72.
Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Bag of tricks for efficient text classification. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers, pages 427-431. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Shiraj Khan, Sharba Bandyopadhyay, Auroop R. Ganguly, Sunil Saigal, David J. Erickson, Vladimir Protopopescu, and George Ostrouchov. 2007. Relative performance of mutual information estimation methods for quantifying the dependence among short and noisy data. Physical Review E, 76(2).
Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Ruslan R Salakhutdinov, Richard Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. *Skip-Thought Vectors*. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3294-3302.
Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, Honglak Lee, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2019. Similarity of neural network representations revisited. In ICML.
LF Kozachenko and Nikolai N Leonenko. 1987. Sample estimate of the entropy of a random vector. Problemy Peredachi Informatii, 23(2):9-16.
Alexander Kraskov, Harald Stögbauer, and Peter Grassberger. 2004. Estimating mutual information. Phys. Rev. E, 69:066138.
Matt J. Kusner, Yu Sun, Nicholas I. Kolkin, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2015. From word embeddings to document distances. In Proceedings of the 32Nd International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 37 of ICML'15, pages 957-966. JMLR.org.
8366
Guy Lev, Benjamin Klein, and Lior Wolf. 2015. In defense of word embedding for generic text representation. In *Natural Language Processing and Information Systems*, pages 35-50, Cham. Springer International Publishing.
Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781.
Jeff Mitchell and Mirella Lapata. 2008. Vector-based models of semantic composition. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages 236-244. Association for Computational Linguistics.
R. Moddemeijer. 1989. On estimation of entropy and mutual information of continuous distributions. Signal Processing, 16(3):233-248.
Young-II Moon, Balaji Rajagopalan, and Upmanu Lall. 1995. Estimation of mutual information using kernel density estimators. Physical Review E, 52(3):2318-2321.
Giannis Nikolentzos, Polykarpos Meladianos, Francois Rousseau, Yannis Stavrakas, and Michalis Vazirgiannis. 2017. Multivariate Gaussian document representation from word embeddings for text categorization. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers, pages 450-455, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Christian S Perone, Roberto Silveira, and Thomas S Paula. 2018. Evaluation of sentence embeddings in downstream and linguistic probing tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.06259.
Matthew Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 2227-2237. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Ben Poole, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Van Den Oord, Alex Alemi, and George Tucker. 2019. On variational bounds of mutual information. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 97 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5171-5180, Long Beach, California, USA. PMLR.
Alec Radford. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training.
D. N. Reshef, Y. A. Reshef, H. K. Finucane, S. R. Grossman, G. McVean, P. J. Turnbaugh, E. S. Lander, M. Mitzenmacher, and P. C. Sabeti. 2011. Detecting novel associations in large data sets. Science, 334(6062):1518-1524.
Brian C. Ross. 2014. Mutual information between discrete and continuous data sets. PLoS ONE, 9(2):e87357.
Andreas Rückle, Steffen Eger, Maxime Peyrard, and Iryna Gurevych. 2018. Concatenated p-mean word embeddings as universal cross-lingual sentence representations. CoRR, abs/1803.01400.
R. Steuer, J. Kurths, C. O. Daub, J. Weise, and J. Selbig. 2002. The mutual information: Detecting and evaluating dependencies between variables. Bioinformatics, 18(Suppl 2):S231-S240.
Sandeep Subramanian, Adam Trischler, Yoshua Bengio, and Christopher J Pal. 2018. Learning general purpose distributed sentence representations via large scale multi-task learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
Taiji Suzuki, Masashi Sugiyama, Jun Sese, and Takafumi Kanamori. 2008. Approximating mutual information by maximum likelihood density ratio estimation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on New Challenges for Feature Selection in Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery at ECML/PKDD 2008, volume 4 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5-20, Antwerp, Belgium. PMLR.
Marwan Torki. 2018. A document descriptor using covariance of word vectors. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 527-532, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Greg Ver Steeg. 2014. Non-parametric entropy estimation toolbox (NPEET).
Greg Ver Steeg and Aram Galstyan. 2013. Information-theoretic measures of influence based on content dynamics. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM '13, pages 3-12, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
John Wieting, Mohit Bansal, Kevin Gimpel, and Karen Livescu. 2015. From paraphrase database to compositional paraphrase model and back. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3:345-358.
John Wieting, Mohit Bansal, Kevin Gimpel, and Karen Livescu. 2016. Towards Universal Paraphrastic Sentence Embeddings. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
8367
John Wieting and Kevin Gimpel. 2018. *Paranmt-50m: Pushing the limits of paraphrastic sentence embeddings with millions of machine translations.* In *Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics* (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 451–462. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime G. Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2019a. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. CoRR, abs/1906.08237.
Ziyi Yang, Chenguang Zhu, and Weizhu Chen. 2019b. Parameter-free sentence embedding via orthogonal basis. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 638-648, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Rui Zhao and Kezhi Mao. 2017. Fuzzy bag-of-words model for document representation. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, pages 1-1.
Vitalii Zhelezniak, Aleksandar Savkov, April Shen, and Nils Hammerla. 2019a. Correlation coefficients and semantic textual similarity. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 951-962, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Vitalii Zhelezniak, Aleksandar Savkov, April Shen, Francesco Moramarco, Jack Flann, and Nils Y. Hammerla. 2019b. Don't settle for average, go for the max: Fuzzy sets and max-pooled word vectors. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
Vitalii Zhelezniak, April Shen, Daniel Busbridge, Aleksandar Savkov, and Nils Hammerla. 2019c. Correlations between word vector sets. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 77-87, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics.
8368
GloVe	fastText	word2vec
COS	KSG	Δ95% CI	COS	KSG	Δ95% CI	COS	KSG	Δ95% CI
STS12	MSRpar	45.17	47.79	[-7.49, 2.09]	44.49	49.37	[-9.84, -0.14]	40.86	39.34	[-2.18, 5.11]
MSRvid	67.50	70.95	[-5.99, -1.04]	73.79	76.65	[-4.92, -0.87]	76.46	71.87	[2.84, 6.68]
SMTeuropearl	58.46	55.68	[-1.67, 7.41]	62.34	58.76	[-0.10, 7.30]	49.58	47.00	[-0.44, 5.72]
surprise.OnWN	61.06	68.72	[-10.58, -4.86]	67.50	70.09	[-4.73, -0.53]	67.94	68.48	[-2.13, 1.07]
surprise.SMTnews	33.92	45.59	[-18.19, -5.90]	45.92	47.06	[-5.27, 2.87]	42.18	44.72	[-6.51, 1.19]
STS13	FNWN	36.57	45.14	[-20.76, 2.89]	39.99	48.43	[-20.07, 2.65]	40.76	46.23	[-15.47, 4.28]
headlines	63.12	70.76	[-10.50, -5.00]	70.25	73.15	[-5.14, -0.93]	64.09	64.88	[-2.73, 1.04]
OnWN	52.57	52.58	[-4.11, 4.01]	66.26	62.90	[0.34, 6.71]	69.84	62.09	[5.14, 10.80]
STS14	deft-forum	34.72	48.14	[-20.66, -6.81]	41.07	53.65	[-18.35, -7.35]	44.57	48.82	[-9.05, 0.34]
deft-news	64.56	65.85	[-7.21, 4.80]	67.46	67.37	[-4.28, 4.52]	64.00	61.22	[-0.73, 6.95]
headlines	55.10	63.42	[-11.10, -5.83]	61.78	65.21	[-5.71, -1.39]	58.27	60.12	[-3.84, 0.01]
images	61.26	74.69	[-16.90, -10.32]	69.62	76.88	[-10.00, -4.69]	74.60	76.01	[-3.11, 0.30]
OnWN	64.35	66.84	[-5.12, 0.07]	74.48	74.15	[-1.39, 2.07]	77.85	73.46	[2.82, 6.14]
tweet-news	53.83	72.51	[-23.66, -14.00]	66.15	72.54	[-9.74, -3.28]	65.00	70.54	[-8.74, -2.88]
STS15	answers-forums	37.02	66.53	[-37.58, -22.43]	56.73	72.83	[-22.20, -10.58]	51.26	63.91	[-19.15, -6.76]
answers-students	68.36	75.16	[-9.85, -4.32]	74.15	75.34	[-3.36, 0.71]	74.55	75.03	[-2.51, 1.28]
belief	52.76	72.92	[-27.61, -13.50]	64.97	77.97	[-18.26, -8.35]	65.30	76.32	[-16.52, -6.51]
headlines	66.21	73.31	[-9.50, -4.96]	71.85	75.18	[-4.98, -1.79]	67.57	68.71	[-2.74, 0.42]
images	71.87	80.35	[-11.23, -5.96]	77.72	83.67	[-8.06, -4.00]	81.21	82.36	[-2.61, 0.26]
STS16	answer-answer	42.52	63.01	[-30.07, -11.93]	49.44	66.27	[-25.49, -9.76]	44.41	60.87	[-25.21, -9.08]
headlines	65.88	73.06	[-11.77, -3.34]	71.29	74.83	[-7.04, -0.66]	67.90	67.38	[-2.32, 3.16]
plagiarism	56.10	80.85	[-34.89, -16.47]	76.16	82.10	[-11.81, -0.80]	75.90	80.58	[-10.08, 0.14]
postediting	71.76	83.57	[-18.32, -6.74]	78.29	84.06	[-10.91, -1.59]	78.94	83.08	[-7.66, -1.16]
question-question	53.31	60.90	[-16.60, 1.33]	66.40	68.39	[-8.75, 4.79]	64.95	59.31	[-1.20, 13.43]
Table 3: MeanPool+Cosine vs. KGS ( $k = 10$ ): Spearman correlation between human and system sentence similarity scores. Values in bold indicate the best result on a subtask for a given set of word vectors. The winner is determined based on a  $95\%$  BCa confidence interval (Efron, 1987) on the difference in performance between the two systems. When there is no significant difference, both values are in bold.
8369
GloVe	fastText	word2vec
SPR	KSG	Δ95% CI	SPR	KSG	Δ95% CI	SPR	KSG	Δ95% CI
STS12	MSRpar	41.28	47.79	[-9.47, -3.75]	44.79	49.37	[-7.36, -2.03]	36.81	39.34	[-5.10, 0.11]
MSRvid	77.32	70.95	[4.65, 8.48]	81.76	76.65	[3.72, 6.74]	74.14	71.87	[0.78, 4.00]
SMTeuropearl	53.63	55.68	[-4.22, 0.10]	58.54	58.76	[-2.24, 1.81]	47.28	47.00	[-1.82, 2.42]
surprise.OnWN	68.71	68.72	[-1.29, 1.28]	71.96	70.09	[0.60, 3.16]	67.99	68.48	[-1.80, 0.83]
surprise.SMTnews	45.71	45.59	[-3.40, 3.72]	49.82	47.06	[-0.24, 5.85]	41.96	44.72	[-5.84, 0.17]
STS13	FNWN	47.53	45.14	[-5.09, 10.30]	47.68	48.43	[-10.10, 8.35]	50.77	46.23	[-5.57, 15.97]
headlines	69.45	70.76	[-2.95, 0.34]	72.23	73.15	[-2.40, 0.52]	64.29	64.88	[-2.12, 0.89]
OnWN	61.98	52.58	[6.94, 12.29]	71.43	62.90	[6.31, 11.24]	69.68	62.09	[5.58, 9.93]
STS14	deft-forum	44.17	48.14	[-8.00, 0.06]	51.27	53.65	[-5.62, 0.95]	44.23	48.82	[-8.32, -1.13]
deft-news	66.90	65.85	[-1.48, 3.94]	65.72	67.37	[-4.69, 1.12]	59.60	61.22	[-4.45, 1.29]
headlines	61.58	63.42	[-3.50, -0.27]	64.03	65.21	[-2.81, 0.33]	58.98	60.12	[-2.76, 0.45]
images	75.37	74.69	[-0.72, 2.22]	77.72	76.88	[-0.47, 2.19]	75.78	76.01	[-1.57, 1.11]
OnWN	72.29	66.84	[3.94, 7.23]	77.63	74.15	[2.23, 4.85]	77.37	73.46	[2.68, 5.37]
tweet-news	70.12	72.51	[-4.04, -0.92]	71.42	72.54	[-2.55, 0.31]	68.09	70.54	[-3.86, -1.09]
STS15	answers-forums	66.02	66.53	[-4.54, 3.53]	69.46	72.83	[-7.04, -0.29]	59.98	63.91	[-8.30, 0.45]
answers-students	71.34	75.16	[-5.49, -2.34]	73.32	75.34	[-3.58, -0.54]	74.48	75.03	[-1.67, 0.54]
belief	73.50	72.92	[-2.25, 3.71]	77.69	77.97	[-2.83, 2.48]	73.53	76.32	[-5.69, 0.28]
headlines	71.77	73.31	[-2.85, -0.32]	74.17	75.18	[-2.20, 0.10]	67.87	68.71	[-2.13, 0.43]
images	81.94	80.35	[0.33, 2.88]	84.49	83.67	[-0.12, 1.78]	82.60	82.36	[-0.68, 1.21]
STS16	answer-answer	61.30	63.01	[-5.73, 2.46]	65.98	66.27	[-4.08, 3.97]	59.09	60.87	[-5.43, 1.76]
headlines	70.03	73.06	[-5.17, -1.24]	72.96	74.83	[-3.96, -0.00]	67.87	67.38	[-1.12, 2.31]
plagiarism	77.72	80.85	[-5.93, -0.98]	83.75	82.10	[-0.09, 4.08]	80.28	80.58	[-2.44, 1.55]
postediting	81.45	83.57	[-3.69, -0.77]	82.85	84.06	[-2.94, 0.35]	80.06	83.08	[-4.96, -1.37]
question-question	66.80	60.90	[1.23, 11.53]	74.03	68.39	[2.14, 10.06]	65.87	59.31	[1.37, 13.10]
Table 4: MaxPool+Spearman vs. KGS ( $k = 10$ ): Spearman correlation between human and system sentence similarity scores. Values in bold indicate the best result on a subtask for a given set of word vectors. The winner is determined based on a  $95\%$  BCa confidence interval (Efron, 1987) on the difference in performance between the two systems. When there is no significant difference, both values are in bold.
8370
GloVe	fastText	word2vec
CKA	KSG	Δ95% CI	CKA	KSG	Δ95% CI	CKA	KSG	Δ95% CI
STS12	MSRpar	42.65	47.79	[-7.97, -2.60]	45.12	49.37	[-6.64, -2.18]	36.00	39.34	[-5.92, -1.01]
MSRvid	76.93	70.95	[4.47, 7.77]	83.78	76.65	[5.66, 8.89]	79.64	71.87	[6.23, 9.62]
SMTeuropearl	57.62	55.68	[0.33, 3.81]	58.74	58.76	[-2.18, 2.02]	46.80	47.00	[-1.84, 1.46]
surprise.OnWN	66.21	68.72	[-3.82, -1.16]	68.10	70.09	[-3.31, -0.70]	66.36	68.48	[-3.42, -0.91]
surprise.SMTnews	46.94	45.59	[-1.19, 3.88]	48.45	47.06	[-1.62, 4.46]	44.12	44.72	[-3.70, 2.09]
STS13	FNWN	37.98	45.14	[-15.29, 1.05]	48.85	48.43	[-8.13, 9.24]	42.02	46.23	[-12.02, 3.58]
headlines	70.34	70.76	[-1.94, 1.00]	71.65	73.15	[-2.96, -0.17]	63.02	64.88	[-3.28, -0.47]
OnWN	61.35	52.58	[6.67, 11.17]	73.46	62.90	[8.19, 13.37]	71.23	62.09	[7.11, 11.57]
STS14	deft-forum	50.80	48.14	[-0.62, 6.11]	53.67	53.65	[-3.66, 3.57]	51.43	48.82	[-0.94, 6.17]
deft-news	67.78	65.85	[-1.13, 5.22]	67.18	67.37	[-3.07, 2.76]	61.48	61.22	[-2.45, 3.31]
headlines	61.51	63.42	[-3.41, -0.51]	63.47	65.21	[-3.22, -0.35]	58.31	60.12	[-3.36, -0.37]
images	74.08	74.69	[-2.02, 0.79]	77.50	76.88	[-0.49, 1.84]	76.44	76.01	[-0.65, 1.54]
OnWN	72.14	66.84	[4.00, 6.77]	79.28	74.15	[3.76, 6.63]	78.45	73.46	[3.79, 6.46]
tweet-news	67.22	72.51	[-7.62, -3.32]	66.81	72.54	[-8.07, -3.85]	65.75	70.54	[-6.73, -3.15]
STS15	answers-forums	64.46	66.53	[-4.87, 0.52]	73.62	72.83	[-1.30, 2.99]	62.50	63.91	[-4.09, 1.24]
answers-students	73.23	75.16	[-3.86, -0.21]	72.11	75.34	[-5.03, -1.69]	73.90	75.03	[-2.58, 0.10]
belief	71.67	72.92	[-4.59, 2.19]	76.50	77.97	[-4.26, 1.14]	74.04	76.32	[-5.15, 0.17]
headlines	73.10	73.31	[-1.36, 0.90]	74.60	75.18	[-1.76, 0.53]	67.90	68.71	[-2.01, 0.41]
images	81.48	80.35	[-0.16, 2.44]	85.04	83.67	[0.46, 2.34]	83.75	82.36	[0.49, 2.38]
STS16	answer-answer	55.29	63.01	[-13.91, -2.04]	61.19	66.27	[-10.28, -0.36]	52.34	60.87	[-14.13, -3.81]
headlines	70.79	73.06	[-4.30, -0.38]	72.35	74.83	[-4.44, -0.59]	65.16	67.38	[-4.27, -0.34]
plagiarism	79.90	80.85	[-4.24, 1.71]	80.19	82.10	[-4.65, 0.16]	80.53	80.58	[-1.80, 1.86]
postediting	81.37	83.57	[-4.92, -0.14]	81.96	84.06	[-4.12, -0.49]	80.85	83.08	[-4.24, -0.42]
question-question	72.46	60.90	[6.29, 18.67]	73.32	68.39	[1.05, 10.39]	70.08	59.31	[5.74, 17.83]
Table 5: CKA (Gaussian) vs. KGS ( $k = 10$ ): Spearman correlation between human and system sentence similarity scores. Values in bold indicate the best result on a subtask for a given set of word vectors. The winner is determined based on a  $95\%$  BCa confidence interval (Efron, 1987) on the difference in performance between the two systems. When there is no significant difference, both values are in bold.
8371