In this task, you are given a part of an article. Your task is to generate headline (title) for this text. Preferred headlines are under fifteen words.

[Q]: One of the limitations of semantic parsing approaches to open-domain question answering is the lexicosyntactic gap between natural language questions and knowledge base entries – there are many ways to ask a question, all with the same answer. In this paper we propose to bridge this gap by generating paraphrases of the input question with the goal that at least one of them will be correctly mapped to a knowledge-base query. We introduce a novel grammar model for paraphrase generation that does not require any sentence-aligned paraphrase corpus. Our key idea is to leverage the flexibility and scalability of latent-variable probabilistic context-free grammars to sample paraphrases. We do an extrinsic evaluation of our paraphrases by plugging them into a semantic parser for Freebase. Our evaluation experiments on the WebQuestions benchmark dataset show that the performance of the semantic parser improves over strong baselines.
[A]: Paraphrase Generation from Latent-Variable PCFGs for Semantic Parsing


[Q]: We describe how to use propositional model counting for a quantitative analysis of product configuration data. Our approach computes valuable meta information such as the total number of valid configurations or the relative frequency of components. This information can be used to assess the severity of documentation errors or to measure documentation quality. As an application example we show how we apply these methods to product documentation formulas of the Mercedes-Benz line of vehicles. In order to process these large formulas we developed and implemented a new model counter for non-CNF formulas. Our model counter can process formulas, whose CNF representations could not be processed up till now.
[A]: Model Counting in Product Configuration


[Q]: In a recent paper, Levy and Goldberg [2] pointed out an interesting connection between prediction-based word embedding models and count models based on pointwise mutual information. Under certain conditions, they showed that both models end up optimizing equivalent objective functions. This paper explores this connection in more detail and lays out the factors leading to differences between these models. We find that the most relevant differences from an optimization perspective are (i) predict models work in a low dimensional space where embedding vectors can interact heavily; (ii) since predict models have fewer parameters, they are less prone to overfitting. Motivated by the insight of our analysis, we show how count models can be regularized in a principled manner and provide closed-form solutions for L1 and L2 regularization. Finally, we propose a new embedding model with a convex objective and the additional benefit of being intelligible.
[A]:
Towards a Better Understanding of Predict and Count Models