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.
--------
Question: Our study identifies sentences in Wikipedia articles that are either identical or highly similar by applying techniques for near-duplicate detection of web pages. This is accomplished with a MapReduce implementation of minhash to identify clusters of sentences with high Jaccard similarity. We show that these clusters can be categorized into six different types, two of which are particularly interesting: identical sentences quantify the extent to which content in Wikipedia is copied and pasted, and near-duplicate sentences that state contradictory facts point to quality issues in Wikipedia.

Answer: Identifying Duplicate and Contradictory Information in Wikipedia


Question: We introduce the nonparametric metadata dependent relational (NMDR) model, a Bayesian nonparametric stochastic block model for network data. The NMDR allows the entities associated with each node to have mixed membership in an unbounded collection of latent communities. Learned regression models allow these memberships to depend on, and be predicted from, arbitrary node metadata. We develop efficient MCMC algorithms for learning NMDR models from partially observed node relationships. Retrospective MCMC methods allow our sampler to work directly with the infinite stickbreaking representation of the NMDR, avoiding the need for finite truncations. Our results demonstrate recovery of useful latent communities from real-world social and ecological networks, and the usefulness of metadata in link prediction tasks.

Answer: The Nonparametric Metadata Dependent Relational Model


Question: In this paper, we present a preliminary work on an approach to fill the gap between logic-based argumentation and the numerous approaches to tackle the dynamics of abstract argumentation frameworks. Our idea is that, even when arguments and attacks are defined by means of a logical belief base, there may be some uncertainty about how accurate is the content of an argument, and so the presence (or absence) of attacks concerning it. We use enthymemes to illustrate this notion of uncertainty of arguments and attacks. Indeed, as argued in the literature, real arguments are often enthymemes instead of completely specified deductive arguments. This means that some parts of the pair (support, claim) may be missing because they are supposed to belong to some “common knowledge”, and then should be deduced by the agent which receives the enthymeme. But the perception that agents have of the common knowledge may be wrong, and then a first agent may state an enthymeme that her opponent is not able to decode in an accurate way. It is likely that the decoding of the enthymeme by the agent leads to mistaken attacks between this new argument and the existing ones. In this case, the agent can receive some information about attacks or arguments acceptance statuses which disagree with her argumentation framework. We exemplify a way to incorporate this new piece of information by means of existing works on the dynamics of abstract argumentation frameworks.

Answer:
Using Enthymemes to Fill the Gap between Logical Argumentation and Revision of Abstract Argumentation Frameworks