File size: 108,298 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 | {
"paper_id": "D13-1014",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T16:43:05.539179Z"
},
"title": "Modeling and Learning Semantic Co-Compositionality through Prototype Projections and Neural Networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Masashi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tsubaki",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Nara Institute of Science and Technology",
"location": {
"postCode": "8916-5, 630-0192",
"settlement": "Takayama, Ikoma",
"region": "Nara",
"country": "Japan"
}
},
"email": "masashi-t@is.naist.jp"
},
{
"first": "Kevin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Duh",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Nara Institute of Science and Technology",
"location": {
"postCode": "8916-5, 630-0192",
"settlement": "Takayama, Ikoma",
"region": "Nara",
"country": "Japan"
}
},
"email": "kevinduh@is.naist.jp"
},
{
"first": "Masashi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shimbo",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Nara Institute of Science and Technology",
"location": {
"postCode": "8916-5, 630-0192",
"settlement": "Takayama, Ikoma",
"region": "Nara",
"country": "Japan"
}
},
"email": "shimbo@is.naist.jp"
},
{
"first": "Yuji",
"middle": [],
"last": "Matsumoto",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Nara Institute of Science and Technology",
"location": {
"postCode": "8916-5, 630-0192",
"settlement": "Takayama, Ikoma",
"region": "Nara",
"country": "Japan"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We present a novel vector space model for semantic co-compositionality. Inspired by Generative Lexicon Theory (Pustejovsky, 1995), our goal is a compositional model where both predicate and argument are allowed to modify each others' meaning representations while generating the overall semantics. This readily addresses some major challenges with current vector space models, notably the polysemy issue and the use of one representation per word type. We implement cocompositionality using prototype projections on predicates/arguments and show that this is effective in adapting their word representations. We further cast the model as a neural network and propose an unsupervised algorithm to jointly train word representations with co-compositionality. The model achieves the best result to date (\u03c1 = 0.47) on the semantic similarity task of transitive verbs (Grefenstette and Sadrzadeh, 2011).",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "D13-1014",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We present a novel vector space model for semantic co-compositionality. Inspired by Generative Lexicon Theory (Pustejovsky, 1995), our goal is a compositional model where both predicate and argument are allowed to modify each others' meaning representations while generating the overall semantics. This readily addresses some major challenges with current vector space models, notably the polysemy issue and the use of one representation per word type. We implement cocompositionality using prototype projections on predicates/arguments and show that this is effective in adapting their word representations. We further cast the model as a neural network and propose an unsupervised algorithm to jointly train word representations with co-compositionality. The model achieves the best result to date (\u03c1 = 0.47) on the semantic similarity task of transitive verbs (Grefenstette and Sadrzadeh, 2011).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Vector space models of words have been very successful in capturing the semantic and syntactic characteristics of individual lexical items (Turney and Pantel, 2010) . Much research has addressed the question of how to construct individual word representations, for example distributional models (Mitchell and Lapata, 2010) and neural models (Collobert and Weston, 2008) . These word representations are used in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks such as part-of-speech tagging, chunking, named entity recognition, and semantic Figure 1 : Here, we capture the semantics of run in run company by projecting the original word representation of run to the prototype space of company (and vice versa).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 164,
"text": "(Turney and Pantel, 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 322,
"text": "(Mitchell and Lapata, 2010)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 369,
"text": "(Collobert and Weston, 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 540,
"end": 548,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "role labeling (Turian et al., 2010; Collobert et al., 2011) . Recently, modeling of semantic compositionality (Frege, 1892) in vector space has emerged as another important line of research (Mitchell and Lapata, 2008; Mitchell and Lapata, 2010 ; Baroni and Zamparelli, 2010; Socher et al., 2012; Grefenstette and Sadrzadeh, 2011; Van de Cruys et al., 2013) . The goal is to formulate how individual word representations ought to be combined to achieve phrasal or sentential semantics.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 35,
"text": "(Turian et al., 2010;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 59,
"text": "Collobert et al., 2011)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 217,
"text": "(Mitchell and Lapata, 2008;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 243,
"text": "Mitchell and Lapata, 2010",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 274,
"text": "Baroni and Zamparelli, 2010;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 295,
"text": "Socher et al., 2012;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 329,
"text": "Grefenstette and Sadrzadeh, 2011;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 356,
"text": "Van de Cruys et al., 2013)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The main questions for semantic compositionality that we are concerned with are: (1) how can polysemy be handled by a single vector representation per word type, learned by either a distributional or neural model, and (2) how does composition resolve these ambiguities. To this end, we are inspired by the idea of type coercion and co-compositionality in Generative Lexicon Theory (Pustejovsky, 1995) . Co-compositionality advocates that instead of a predicate-argument view of composition, both predicate and argument influence/coerce each other to generate the overall meaning. For example, consider a polysemous word like run:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 381,
"end": 400,
"text": "(Pustejovsky, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 (a) He runs the company.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 (b) He runs the marathon.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Run may have several senses, but the prototypical verbs that select for company differ from those that select for marathon, and thus the ambiguity at the word level is resolved at the sentence level. The same is true for the other direction, where the predicate also coerces meaning to the argument to fit expectation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We believe that models for semantic composition ought to incorporate elements of cocompositionality. We propose such a model here, using what we call prototype projections. For each predicate, we transform its vector representation by projecting it into a latent space that is prototypical of its argument. This projection is performed analogously for each argument as well, and the final meaning is computed by composition of these transformed vectors (Figure 1 ). In addition, the model is cast as a neural network where word representations could be re-trained or fine-tuned. 1 Our contributions are two-fold:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 579,
"end": 580,
"text": "1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 453,
"end": 462,
"text": "(Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "1. We propose a novel model for semantic cocompositionality. This model, based on prototype projections, is easy to implement and achieves state-of-the-art performance in the sentence similarity dataset developed by Grefenstette and Sadrzadeh (2011).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "word representations (eg., SDS and NLM in Section 2) are sufficiently effective at capturing 1 While we are inspired by co-compositionality, it is important to note that our model does not implement qualia structure and other important components of Generative Lexicon Theory. We operate within the vector space model of distributional semantics, so these ideas are implemented with matrix algebra, which is a natural fit with neural networks. polysemy, as long as we have the proper mechanism to tease out the proper sense during composition. We further propose an unsupervised neural network training algorithm that jointly fine-tunes the word representations within the co-composition model, resulting in even better performance on the sentence similarity task.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Our results empirically confirm that existing",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "We would like to emphasize the second contribution especially. Semantics research is divided in two strands, one focusing on learning word representations without consideration for compositionality, and the other focusing on compositional semantics using the representations only as an input. But issues are actually related from the linguistics perspective, and even more so if we adopt a Generative Lexicon perspective. Our neural network model bridges these two strands of research by modeling cocompositionality and learning word representations simultaneously. We note that methods using context effects have been explored by Erk and Pad\u00f3 (2008; 2009) and Thater et al. (2010; , but to the best of our knowledge, ours is the first model to perform co-compositionality and learning of word representations jointly.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 631,
"end": 650,
"text": "Erk and Pad\u00f3 (2008;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 651,
"end": 656,
"text": "2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 661,
"end": 681,
"text": "Thater et al. (2010;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Our results empirically confirm that existing",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "In the following, we first provide background to the word representations employed here (Section 2). We describe the model for co-compositionality in Section 3 and the corresponding neural network in Section 4. Evaluation and experiments are presented in Sections 5 and 6. Finally, we end with related work (Section 7) and conclusions (Section 8).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Our results empirically confirm that existing",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "Word meaning is often represented in a high dimensional space, where each element corresponds to some contextual element in which the word is found. Mitchell and Lapata (2010) present a co-occurrencebased semantic space called Simple Distributional Semantic space (SDS). Their SDS model uses a context window of five words on either side of the target word and 2,000 vector components, representing the most frequent context words (excluding a list of stop words). These components v i (t) were set to the ratio of the probability of the context word given the target word to the probability of the context word overall:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Simple Distributional Semantic space (SDS) word vectors",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "v i (t) = p(c i |t) p(c i ) = f req c i ,t \u00d7 f req total f req t \u00d7 f req c i (1)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Simple Distributional Semantic space (SDS) word vectors",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "where f req c i ,t , f req total , f req t and f req c i are the frequencies of the context word c i with the target word t, the total count of all word tokens, the frequency of the target word t, and the frequency of the context word c i , respectively.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Simple Distributional Semantic space (SDS) word vectors",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Another popular way to learn word representations is based on the Neural Language Model (NLM) (Bengio et al., 2003) . In comparison with SDS, NLM tend to be low-dimensional (e.g. 50 dimensions) but employ dense features. These dense feature vectors are usually called word embeddings, and it has been shown that such vectors can capture interesting linear relationships, such as king \u2212 man + woman \u2248 queen (Mikolov et al., 2013) . In this work, we adopt the model by Collobert and Weston (2008) . The idea is to construct a neural network based on word sequences, where one outputs high scores for n-grams that occur in a large unlabeled corpus and low scores for nonsense n-grams where one word is replaced by a random word. This word representation with NLM has been used to good effect, for example in (Turian et al., 2010; Collobert et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2012) where induced word representations are used with sophisticated features to improve performance in various NLP tasks. Specifically, we first represent the word sequence as a vector",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 115,
"text": "(Bengio et al., 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 428,
"text": "(Mikolov et al., 2013)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 494,
"text": "Collobert and Weston (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 805,
"end": 826,
"text": "(Turian et al., 2010;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 827,
"end": 850,
"text": "Collobert et al., 2011;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 851,
"end": 870,
"text": "Huang et al., 2012)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "x = [d(w 1 ); d(w 2 ); . . . ; d(w m )],",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "where w i is i th word in the sequence, m is the window size, d(w) is the vector representation of word w (an n-dimensional column vector) and",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "[d(w 1 ); d(w 2 ); . . . ; d(w m )]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "is the concatenation of word vectors as an input of neural network. Second, we compute the score of the sequence,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "score(x) = s T (tanh(Wx + b))",
"eq_num": "(2)"
}
],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "where W \u2208 R h\u00d7 (mn) and s \u2208 R h are the first and second layer weights of the neural network, and b \u2208 R h is the bias unit of hidden layer. The superscript T represents transposition, and tanh is applied element-wise. We also create a corrupted sequence",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 19,
"text": "(mn)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "x c = [d(w 1 ); d(w 2 ); . . . ; d(w m \u2032 )]",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "where w m \u2032 is chosen randomly from the vocabulary. We compute the score of this implicit negative sequence x c with the same neural network, score(x c ) = s T (tanh(Wx c + b)). Finally, we get the cost function of this training algorithm as follow.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "J = max(0, 1 \u2212 score(x) + score(x c ))",
"eq_num": "(3)"
}
],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "In order to minimize this cost function, we optimize the parameters \u03b8 = (s, W, b, x) via backpropagation with stochastic gradient descent (SGD).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "3 The Model",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neural Language Model (NLM) word embeddings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Generative Lexicon Theory (Pustejovsky, 1995) makes a distinction between accidental polysemy (homonyms, e.g. bank as financial institution vs. as river side) and logical polysemy (e.g. figure and ground meanings of door). Our model handles both cases using the concept of projection to latent prototype space. The fundamental idea is that for each word w and a syntactic/semantic (binary) relation R (such as verb-object relation), w has a set of prototype words with which it frequently occurs in relation R. For example, if w is a word company, and R is the object-verb relation, prototype words should include start, build, and buy ( Figure 1 ). For each word-relation pair, we pre-compute the latent semantic subspace spanned by these prototype words. Later, when we encounter a phrase expressing a relation R between two words w 1 and w 2 , each word is first projected onto a latent subspace determined by the other word and relation R. The projection operation shifts the meaning of individual words in accordance with context, and through this operation we realize coercion/co-composition. And finally, the meaning of the phrase is computed from the two projected points in the semantic space.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 45,
"text": "(Pustejovsky, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 638,
"end": 646,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Let us describe how to compute the latent subspace associated with a word w 0 and a relation R. First, we collect from a corpus a set of prototype words that occur frequently in relation R with target word w 0 . So for example in Figure 1, company, and R = VerbOf is the object-verb relation,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 230,
"end": 239,
"text": "Figure 1,",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "W (VerbOf, company) = {start, build, . . . , buy}. Now let W (R, w 0 ) = {w 1 , w 2 , \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 , w m }",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "be the m prototype words we collected, and let d(w) denote the n-dimensional (column) vector representation of word w (either by SDS or NLM representation). We make an m\u00d7n matrix C (R,w 0 ) by stacking the prototype word vectors, i.e.,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "C (R,w 0 ) = [d(w 1 ), d(w 2 ), \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 , d(w m )] T",
"eq_num": "(4)"
}
],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "and then apply Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) to extract the latent space from this matrix: Figure 2 shows the graphical representation of this matrix factorization. In NLP tasks, SVD is often applied to a term-document matrix, but in our model, we apply SVD to the matrix consisting of word vectors.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 104,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "C (R,w 0 ) \u2248 U k \u03a3 k V T k . (5) word 1 word vector dimension n word 2 word m m \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb k k n \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb \u30fb k k \u03a3 k V k T U k C \u2248",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Intuitively, \u03a3 k V T k represents the latent subspace formed by prototypical words",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "W (R, w 0 ) = {w 1 , w 2 , \u2022 \u2022 \u2022 , w m }.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "We call this matrix the prototype space of word w 0 with respect to relation R.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Note that the matrix of orthogonal projection onto this prototype space is given by",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "P (R,w 0 ) = (\u03a3 k V T k ) T (\u03a3 k V T k )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": ". Hence, when we observe a relation R(w 0 , w), the projected representation of word w in this context is computed by prpj (R,w 0 ) (w) defined as follows: ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "prpj (R,w 0 ) (w) = P (R,w 0 ) d(w).",
"eq_num": "(6)"
}
],
"section": "Prototype Projection",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "In order to model co-compositionality, we apply prototype projection to both the verb and the object. In particular, suppose verb is w v and object is w o , C (VerbOf,wo) is used to project w v and C (ObjOf,wv) is used to project w o . The vector that represents the overall meaning of verb-object with prototype projection is computed by:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Co-Compositionality",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "cocomp(w v , w o ) = f (prpj (VerbOf,wo) (w v ), prpj (ObjOf,wv) (w o )) (7)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Co-Compositionality",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Function f can be a compositional computation like simple addition or element-wise multiplication of two vectors. This is graphically shown in Figure 1 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 151,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Co-Compositionality",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "In this section, we propose a new neural language model that learns word representations while jointly accounting for compositional semantics. One central assumption of our work (and many other works in compositional semantics) is that a single vector per word type sufficiently represents the multiple meanings and usage patterns of a word. 3 That means that for a polysemous word, its word vector actually represents an aggregation of the distinctly different contexts it occurs in. We will show that such an assumption is quite reasonable under our model, since the prototype projections successfully tease out the proper semantics from these aggregate representations. However, it is natural to wonder whether one can do better if one incorporates the compositional model into the training of the word representations in the first place. To do so, we formulate a novel model called Compositional Neural Language Model (Section 4.1). This model is a combination of an unsupervised training algorithm with basic compositionality (addition/multiplications). Then, we extend this model with the projection idea in section 3.2 to formulate a Co-Compositional Neural Language Model (Section 4.2).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 342,
"end": 343,
"text": "3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Unsupervised Learning of Co-Compositionality",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "(C-NLM) Compositional Neural Language Model (C-NLM)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "is a combination of a word representation learning method and compositional rule. In contrast to other compositional models based on machine learning, our model has no complex parameters for modeling composition. Composition is modeled using straightforward vector addition/multiplications; instead, what is learned is the word representation. Figure 3 shows the C-NLM. The learning algorithm is unsupervised, and works by artificially 3 There are works on multiple representations, e.g., (Reisinger and Mooney, 2010) ; we focus on single representation here. generating negative examples in a fashion analogous to the NLM learning algorithm of (Collobert and Weston, 2008) and contrastive estimation (Smith and Eisner, 2005) . First, given some initial word representations and raw sentences, we compute the compositional vector with function f (in this section, we will assume that we will be using the addition operator). Second, in order to obtain the score of compositional vector, we compute the dot product with vector s \u2208 R n (n is the dimension of the word vector space): verb vector",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 436,
"end": 437,
"text": "3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 489,
"end": 517,
"text": "(Reisinger and Mooney, 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 645,
"end": 673,
"text": "(Collobert and Weston, 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 725,
"text": "(Smith and Eisner, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 344,
"end": 352,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "z = f(v, o) s score = s T z P obj P verb Co-Compositional Neural Language Model (CoC-NLM) v o y x verb obj",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "v = d(w v ) and object vector o = d(w o ). score(v, o) = s T f (v, o) = s T (v + o)",
"eq_num": "(8)"
}
],
"section": "Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "We also create a corrupted pair by substituting a random verb w verb \u2032 . The cost function",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "J = max(0, 1 \u2212 score(v, o) + score(v c , o)),",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "where v c is the word vector of w verb \u2032 , encourages that the score of correct pair is higher than the score of the corrupt pair. Let z = v + o, our model parameters are \u03b8 = (s, z, v) . The optimization is divided into two steps:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 175,
"end": 184,
"text": "(s, z, v)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "1. Optimize s and z via SGD.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "2. Let z new be the updated z via step 1. The new verb vector v new trained within additive compositionality is just v new = z new \u2212 o. Note that if we also want to optimize o, we may want to also corrupt the object and run SGD in step 2 as well.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "(CoC-NLM)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Co-Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "We now add prototype projection into C-NLM, making our final model: Co-Compositional Neural Language Model (CoC-NLM). We define the score function as dot product of s and additional vector of prototype projected vectors (Figure 4 ). Let P obj = P (VerbOf,wo) and P verb = P (ObjOf,wv) ,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 220,
"end": 229,
"text": "(Figure 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Co-Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "score(v, o) = s T (P obj v + P verb o).",
"eq_num": "(9)"
}
],
"section": "Co-Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Let x = P obj v, y = P verb o and z = x + y.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Co-Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Our model parameters are \u03b8 = (s, z, v) . The optimization algorithm of CoC-NLM is divided into three steps like C-NLM. First, we optimize s and z. Second, the projected verb vector is updated as x new = z new \u2212 y. Finally we optimize v to minimize the Euclidean distance between x new and P obj v, where \u03bb is a regularization hyper-parameter:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 38,
"text": "(s, z, v)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Co-Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "J(v) = 1 2 ||x new \u2212 P obj v|| 2 + \u03bb 2 v T v",
"eq_num": "(10)"
}
],
"section": "Co-Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "5 Evaluation",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Co-Compositional Neural Language Model",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "In order to evaluate the performance of our new co-compositional model with prototype projection and word representation learning algorithm, we make use of the disambiguation task of transitive sentences developed by Grefenstette and Sadrzadeh (2011) . This is an extension of the two words phrase similarity task defined in Mitchell and Lapata (2008), and constructed according to similar guidelines. The dataset consists of similarity judgments between a landmark verb and a triple consisting of a transitive target verb, subject and object extracted from the BNC corpus. Human judges give scores between 1 to 7, with higher scores implying higher semantic similarity. For example, Table 2 shows some examples from the data: we see that the verb meet with subject system and object criterion is judged similar to the landmark verb satisfy but not visit. The dataset contains a total of 2500 similarity judgements, provided by 25 participants. 4 The task is to have the model produce a score for each pair of landmark verb and verb-subject-object triple. Models are evaluated by computing the Spearman's \u03c1 correlation between its similarity scores and that of the human judgments. Table 2 : Examples from the disambiguation task developed by Grefenstette and Sadrzadeh (2011). Human judges give scores between 1 to 7, with higher scores implying higher semantic similarity. Verb meet with subject system and object criterion is judged similar to the landmark verb satisfy but not visit.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 250,
"text": "Grefenstette and Sadrzadeh (2011)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 945,
"end": 946,
"text": "4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 684,
"end": 691,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1182,
"end": 1189,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dataset",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "We compare our model against multiple baselines for semantic compositionality:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Baselines",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "1. Mitchell and Lapata's (2008) additive and element-wise multiplicative model as simplest baselines.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Baselines",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "2. Grefenstette and Sadrzadeh's (2011) model based on the abstract categorical framework (Coecke et al., 2010) . This model computes the outer product of the subject and object vector, the outer product of the verb vector with itself, and then the element-wise product of both results. 's (2008) model, which adapts the word vectors based on context and is the most similar in terms of motivation to ours. 4. Van de Cruy et al. (2013) multi-way interaction model based on matrix factorization. This achieves the best result for this task to date.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 110,
"text": "(Coecke et al., 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 295,
"text": "'s (2008)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Baselines",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "A detailed explanation of these models will be provided in Section 7. For the underlying word representations, we experiment with sparse 2000-dim SDS and dense 50-dim NLM. These are provided by Blacoe and Lapata (2012) 5 and trained on the British National Corpus (BNC). We are interested in knowing how sensitive each model is to the underlying word representation. In general, this is a challenging task: the upper-bound of \u03c1 = 0.62 is the inter-annotator agreement.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 218,
"text": "Blacoe and Lapata (2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 220,
"text": "5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Erk and Pad\u00f3",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "In terms of implementation detail, our model and our re-implementation of Erk and Pado's model make use of the ukWaC corpus (Baroni et al., 2009) . 6 This corpus is a two billion word corpus automatically harvested from the web and parsed by the Malt-Parser (Nivre et al., 2006) . We use ukWaC corpus to collect W (VerbOf, w o ) and W (ObjOf, w v ) for prototype projections. We also extract about 5000 verb-object pairs that relevant for testdata from this corpus to train our neural network learning algorithm. In our co-compositional model, the contribution ratio of SVD is set to 80% (i.e. automatically fixing k in SVD to include 80% of the top singular values). We set the number of prototype vectors to be m = 20, where W (VerbOf, w o ) is filtered with high frequency words and W (ObjOf, w v ) is filtered with both high frequency and high similarity words. In our model, we output the scores for SVO triple sentence dataset as (subject=w s , verb=w v , object=w o , f = Addition/Multiplication):",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 145,
"text": "(Baroni et al., 2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 278,
"text": "(Nivre et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implementation details",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "cocomp(w s , w v , w o ) = f (d(w s ), cocomp(w v , w o )) (11)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implementation details",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "6 Results and Discussion Table 3 shows the correlation scores of various models. Our observations are as follows:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 32,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Implementation details",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "1. The best reported result for this task (Van de Cruys et al., 2013) is \u03c1 = 0.37. Our model (with NLM as word representation and f =Addition as operator) achieves \u03c1 = 0.44, outperforming it by a large margin. To the best of our knowledge, this is now state-of-the-art result for this task. 3. The contextual model of Erk and Pad\u00f3 (SDS) also performed relatively well (\u03c1 = 0.39), in fact outperforming the Van de Cruy et al. (2013) result as well. This means that the general idea of adapting word representations based on context is a very powerful one. However, Erk and Pad\u00f3's model using the NLM representation is extremely poor (\u03c1 = 0.03). The reason is that it uses a product operation underthe-hood to adapt the vectors, which inherently assumes a sparse representation. In this sense, our projection approach is more robust.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 69,
"text": "(Van de Cruys et al., 2013)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Main Results: The Correlation",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "The state-of-the-art result for our model in Table 3 does not yet make use of the training algorithm described in Section 4. It is simply implementing the co-compositionality idea using prototype projections (Section 3.2). Next in Section 6.2 we will show additional gains using unsupervised learning.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 53,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Main Results: The Correlation",
"sec_num": "6.1"
},
{
"text": "In this experiment, we examine how much gain is possible by re-training the word representation of verbs using the unsupervised algorithm described in Section 4. We focus on the additive model of Compositional NLM, both basic and prototype projection. The initial word representation is from model original representation re-trained C-NLM 0.31 0.38 CoC-NLM 0.44 0.47 Table 4 : Results of re-training the word representation for C-NLM and CoC-NLM. Learning rate \u03b1 = 0.01, regularization \u03bb = 10 \u22124 and iteration = 20. One iteration is one run through the dataset of 5000 verb-object pairs which we made from the ukWaC corpus.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 367,
"end": 374,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Improvements from unsupervised learning",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "NLM. Table 4 shows the gains in correlation score. This result shows that our learning model successfully captures good representation within cocompositionality of additive model. In contrast to other previous compositional models, our model does not require estimating a large number of parameters for computation of compositional vectors and word representation itself is more suitable for it. Furthermore, learning is very fast, taking about 10 minutes for C-NLM on a standard machine with Intel Core i7 2.93Ghz CPU and 8GB of RAM.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 12,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Improvements from unsupervised learning",
"sec_num": "6.2"
},
{
"text": "The number of prototype words (m in Figure 1 ) we use to generate the prototype space is one hyperparameter that our model has. Here, we analyze the effect of the choice of m. Figure 5 shows the relation of m and the performance of co-compositional model with prototype projections using either SDS or NLM representations. In general, both NLM and SDS show relatively smooth and flat curves across m, indicating the relative robustness of the approach. Nevertheless, results do degrade for large m, due to increase in noise from non-prototype words. Further, it does appear that NLM has a slower drop in correlation with increasing m compared with SDS. This suggests that NLM is more robust, which is possibly attributable to the dense and lowdimensional distributed features.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 44,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 184,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The number of prototype words",
"sec_num": "6.3"
},
{
"text": "We have presented a compositional model of the form d(w s ) + cocomp(w v , w o ), where prototype projections are performed on both w v and w o and w s is composed as is without projection. In general, we have the freedom to choose what to project and what not to project under this co-compositional framework. Here in Table 5 we show the results of Figure 5 : The relation between the number of prototype words and correlation of SDS or NLM. In general, NLM has higher correlation than SDS and is more robust across the m. these variants, using f =Addition and SDS/NLM representations without re-training. We note that our positive results mainly come from the verb projections. Subject information actually does not help. We believe this best configuration is taskdependent; in this test collection, the subjects appear to have little contribution to the landmark verb.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 319,
"end": 326,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": "TABREF7"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 358,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Variations in model configuration",
"sec_num": "6.4"
},
{
"text": "In recent years, several sophisticated vector space models have been proposed for computing compositional semantics. Mitchell and Lapata (2010), Erk (2012) and Baroni et al. (2013) are recommended survey papers.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 180,
"text": "Baroni et al. (2013)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "One of the first approaches is the vector addition/multiplication idea of Mitchell and Lapata (2008) . The appeal of this kind of simple approach is its intuitive geometric interpretation and its robustness to various datasets. However, it may not be sufficiently expressive to represent the various factors involved in compositional semantics, such as syntax and context. To this end, Baroni and Zamparelli (2010) present a compositional model for adjectives and nouns. In their model, an adjective is a matrix operator that modifies the noun vector into an adjective-noun vector. Zanzotto et al. 2010and Guevara (2010) also proposed linear transformation models for composition and address the issue of estimating large matrices with least squares or regression techniques. Socher et al. (2012) extend this linear transformation approach with the more powerful model of Matrix-Vector Recursive Neural Networks (MV-RNN). Each node in a parse tree is assigned both a vector and a matrix. The vector captures the actual meaning of the word itself, while the matrix is modeled as a operator that modify the meaning of neighboring words and phrases. This model captures semantic change phenomenon like not bad is similar to good due to a composition of the bad vector with a meaning-flipping not matrix. But this MV-RNN also need to optimize all matrices of words from initial value (identity plus a small amount of Gaussian noise) with supervised dataset like movie reviews. Our prototype projection model is similar to these models as a matrix-vector operation, except that the matrix is not learned and computed from prototype words. In future work, we can imagine integrating the two models, using these prototype projection matrices as initial values for MV-RNN training (Socher et al., 2012) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 100,
"text": "Mitchell and Lapata (2008)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 414,
"text": "Baroni and Zamparelli (2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 776,
"end": 796,
"text": "Socher et al. (2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 1773,
"end": 1794,
"text": "(Socher et al., 2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Another approach is exemplified by Coecke et al. (2010) . In their mathematical framework unifying categorical logic and vector space models, the sentence vector is modeled as a function of the Kronecker product of its word vectors. Grefenstette and Sadrzadeh (2011) implement this based on unsupervised learning of matrices for relational words and apply them to the vectors of their arguments. Their idea is that words with relational types, such as verbs, adjectives, and adverbs are matrices that act as a filter on their arguments. They also developed a new semantic similarity task based on transitive Composition Operator Parameter Add: Table 6 : Comparison of composition operators that combine two word vector representations, u, v \u2208 R n and their learning parameters. Our model only needs two hyper-parameters: the number of prototype words m and dimensional reduction k in SVD verbs, which is the dataset we used here. The previous state-of-the-art result for this task comes from the model of Van de Cruys et al. (2013) . They model compositionality as a multi-way interaction between latent factors, which are automatically constructed from corpus data via matrix factorization.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 55,
"text": "Coecke et al. (2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 1012,
"end": 1031,
"text": "Cruys et al. (2013)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 644,
"end": 651,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "w 1 u + w 2 v w 1 , w 2 \u2208 R Multiply: u w1 \u2299 v w2 w 1 , w 2 \u2208 R FullAdd: W 1 u + W 2 v W 1 , W 2 \u2208 R n\u00d7n LexFunc: A u v A u \u2208 R n\u00d7n FullLex: \u03c3([W 1 A u v, W 2 A v u]) A u , A v \u2208 R n\u00d7n W 1 , W 2 \u2208 R n\u00d7n Ours (Add): P (R,v) u + P (R,u) v SVD's (m, k) Ours (Mult): P (R,v) u \u2299 P (R,u) v SVD's (m, k)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Comprehensive evaluation of various existing models are reported in (Blacoe and Lapata, 2012; Dinu et al., 2013) . Blacoe and Lapata (2012) highlight the importance of jointly examining word representations and compositionality operators. However, two out of three composition methods they evaluate are parameter-free, so that they can side-step the issue of parameter estimation. Dinu et al. (2013) describe the relation between word vector and compositionality in more detail with free parameters. Table 6 summarizes some ways to compose the meaning of two word vectors (u, v), following (Dinu et al., 2013) . These range from simple operators (e.g. Add and Multiply) to expressive models with many free parameters (e.g. LexFunc, FullLex). Many of these models need to optimize n \u00d7 n parameters, which may be large. On the other hand, our model only needs two hyper-parameters: the number of prototype words m and dimensional reduction k in SVD (Table 6) . Furthermore, our model performance with neural language model word embeddings is robust to variations in m.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 93,
"text": "(Blacoe and Lapata, 2012;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 112,
"text": "Dinu et al., 2013)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 139,
"text": "Blacoe and Lapata (2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 573,
"end": 610,
"text": "(u, v), following (Dinu et al., 2013)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 500,
"end": 508,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 948,
"end": 957,
"text": "(Table 6)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Most closely related to our work is the work by Erk and Pad\u00f3 (2008; 2009) and Thater et al. (2010; , which falls under the research theme of computing word meaning in context. Both methods are characterized by the use of selectional prefer-ence information for subjects, verbs, and objects in context; our prototype word vectors are essentially equivalent to this idea. The main difference is in how we modify the target word representation v using this information: whereas we project v onto a latent subspace formed by collection of prototype vectors, Erk and Pad\u00f3 (2008; 2009) and Thater et al. (2010; use the prototype vectors to directly modify the elements of v, i.e. by elementwise product with the centroid prototype vector. Intuitively, both our method and theirs essentially delete part of a word vector representation to adapt the meaning in context. We believe the projection is more robust to the underlying word representation (and this is shown in the results for SDS vs. NLM representations), but we note that we may be able to borrow some of more sophisticated ways to find prototype vectors from Erk and Pad\u00f3 (2008; 2009) and Thater et al. (2010; .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 67,
"text": "Erk and Pad\u00f3 (2008;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 73,
"text": "2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 98,
"text": "Thater et al. (2010;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 554,
"end": 573,
"text": "Erk and Pad\u00f3 (2008;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 579,
"text": "2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 584,
"end": 604,
"text": "Thater et al. (2010;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 1114,
"end": 1133,
"text": "Erk and Pad\u00f3 (2008;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1134,
"end": 1139,
"text": "2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 1144,
"end": 1164,
"text": "Thater et al. (2010;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related work",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "We began this work by asking how it is possible to handle polysemy issues in compositional semantics, especially when adopting distributional semantics methods that construct only one representation per word type. After all, the different senses of the same word are all conflated into a single vector representation. We found our inspiration in Generative Lexicon Theory (Pustejovsky, 1995) , where ambiguity is resolved due to co-compositionality of the words in the sentence, i.e., the meaning of an ambiguous verb is generated by the properties the object it takes, and vice versa. We implement this idea in a novel neural network model using prototype projections. The advantages of this model is that it is robust to the underlying word representation used and that it enables an effective joint learning of word representations. The model achieves the current state-of-the-art performance (\u03c1 = 0.47) on the semantic similarity task of transitive verbs (Grefenstette and Sadrzadeh, 2011).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 372,
"end": 391,
"text": "(Pustejovsky, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion and Future Work",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "Directions for future research include:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion and Future Work",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Experiments on other semantics tasks, such as paraphrase detection, word sense induction, and word meaning in context.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion and Future Work",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Extension to more holistic sentence-level com-position using a matrix-vector recursive framework like (Socher et al., 2012) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 125,
"text": "(Socher et al., 2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion and Future Work",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 Explore further the potential synergy between Distributional Semantics and the Generative Lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion and Future Work",
"sec_num": "8"
},
{
"text": "ronan.collobert.com/senna/",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/ s1066731/index.php?page=resources",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This work was partially supported by JSPS KAK-ENHI Grant Number 24800041, JSPS KAKENHI 2430057 and Microsoft Research CORE Project. We would like to thank Hiroyuki Shindo and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Nouns are vectors, adjectives are matrices: Representing adjective-noun constructions in semantic space",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marco",
"middle": [],
"last": "Baroni",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roberto",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zamparelli",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marco Baroni and Roberto Zamparelli. 2010. Nouns are vectors, adjectives are matrices: Representing adjective-noun constructions in semantic space. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "The wacky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed webcrawled corpora. Language resources and evaluation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marco",
"middle": [],
"last": "Baroni",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Silvia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bernardini",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Adriano",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ferraresi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eros",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zanchetta",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "",
"volume": "43",
"issue": "",
"pages": "209--226",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marco Baroni, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi, and Eros Zanchetta. 2009. The wacky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web- crawled corpora. Language resources and evaluation, 43(3):209-226.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Frege in space: A program for compositional distributional semantics. Linguistic Issues in Language Technologies",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marco",
"middle": [],
"last": "Baroni",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Raffaella",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bernardi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roberto",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zamparelli",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2013,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marco Baroni, Raffaella Bernardi, and Roberto Zampar- elli. 2013. Frege in space: A program for compo- sitional distributional semantics. Linguistic Issues in Language Technologies.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "A neural probabilistic language model",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yoshua",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bengio",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R\u00e9jean",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ducharme",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Pascal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vincent",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Janvin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Journal of Machine Learning Research",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1137--1155",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yoshua Bengio, R\u00e9jean Ducharme, Pascal Vincent, and Christian Janvin. 2003. A neural probabilistic lan- guage model. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:1137-1155.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "A comparison of vector-based representations for semantic composition",
"authors": [
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [],
"last": "Blacoe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mirella",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lapata",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "William Blacoe and Mirella Lapata. 2012. A comparison of vector-based representations for semantic composi- tion. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP- CoNLL).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Mathematical foundations for a compositional distributional model of meaning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bob",
"middle": [],
"last": "Coecke",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mehrnoosh",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sadrzadeh",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clark",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bob Coecke, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh, and Stephen Clark. 2010. Mathematical foundations for a composi- tional distributional model of meaning. CoRR, ab- s/1003.4394.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "A unified architecture for natural language processing: Deep neural networks with multitask learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ronan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collobert",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jason",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weston",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ronan Collobert and Jason Weston. 2008. A unified architecture for natural language processing: Deep neural networks with multitask learning. In Pro- ceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Natural language processing (almost) from scratch",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ronan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collobert",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jason",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weston",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L\u00e9on",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bottou",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Karlen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Koray",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kavukcuoglu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Pavel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kuksa",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "",
"volume": "34",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1388--1439",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ronan Collobert, Jason Weston, L\u00e9on Bottou, Michael Karlen, Koray Kavukcuoglu, and Pavel Kuksa. 2011. Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. 34(8):1388-1439.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Maltparser: A data-driven parser-generator for dependency parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joakim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nivre",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Johan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hall",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jens",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nilsson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joakim Nivre, Johan Hall, and Jens Nilsson. 2006. Maltparser: A data-driven parser-generator for depen- dency parsing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "The Generative Lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pustejovsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "James Pustejovsky. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Multiprototype vector-space models of word meaning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joseph",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reisinger",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Raymond",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mooney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Human Language Technologies: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL-HLT)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joseph Reisinger and Raymond J Mooney. 2010. Multi- prototype vector-space models of word meaning. In Human Language Technologies: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL-HLT).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Contrastive estimation: Training log-linear models on unlabeled data",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Noah",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jason",
"middle": [],
"last": "Smith",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Eisner",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Noah A. Smith and Jason Eisner. 2005. Contrastive estimation: Training log-linear models on unlabeled data. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Semantic compositionality through recursive matrix-vector spaces",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Socher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Brody",
"middle": [],
"last": "Huval",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Ng",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Richard Socher, Brody Huval, Christopher D. Manning, and Andrew Y. Ng. 2012. Semantic compositionality through recursive matrix-vector spaces. In Proceed- ings of the Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Contextualizing semantic representations using syntactically enriched vector models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stefan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Thater",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hagen",
"middle": [],
"last": "F\u00fcrstenau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Manfred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pinkal",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stefan Thater, Hagen F\u00fcrstenau, and Manfred Pinkal. 2010. Contextualizing semantic representations using syntactically enriched vector models. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (ACL).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Word meaning in context: A simple and effective vector model",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stefan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Thater",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hagen",
"middle": [],
"last": "F\u00fcrstenau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Manfred",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pinkal",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stefan Thater, Hagen F\u00fcrstenau, and Manfred Pinkal. 2011. Word meaning in context: A simple and effective vector model. In Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing (IJCNLP).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Word representations: A simple and general method for semi-supervised learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Joseph",
"middle": [],
"last": "Turian",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lev-Arie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ratinov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yoshua",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bengio",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joseph Turian, Lev-Arie Ratinov, and Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Word representations: A simple and general method for semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (ACL).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Peter",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Patrick",
"middle": [],
"last": "Turney",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pantel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Journal of artificial intelligence research",
"volume": "37",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "141--188",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Peter D Turney and Patrick Pantel. 2010. From fre- quency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of artificial intelligence research, 37(1):141- 188.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "A tensor-based factorization model of semantic compositionality",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Tim",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van De Cruys",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Thierry",
"middle": [],
"last": "Poibeau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Anna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Korhonen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2013,
"venue": "Human Language Technologies: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL-HLT)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Tim Van de Cruys, Thierry Poibeau, and Anna Korhonen. 2013. A tensor-based factorization model of semantic compositionality. In Human Language Technologies: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL- HLT).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Estimating linear models for compositional distributional semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fabio",
"middle": [],
"last": "Massimo Zanzotto",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ioannis",
"middle": [],
"last": "Korkontzelos",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Francesca",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fallucchi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Suresh",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manandhar",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fabio Massimo Zanzotto, Ioannis Korkontzelos, Francesca Fallucchi, and Suresh Manandhar. 2010. Estimating linear models for compositional distributional semantics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING).",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Graphical representation of SVD in our model.",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Compositional Neural Language Model (C-NLM).",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Co-Compositional Neural Language Model (CoC-NLM) is C-NLM with prototype projection.",
"uris": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>if w 0 =</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Examples of verb-object pairs. Original verb and landmark verb similarity, prototype projected verb and landmark verb similarity, as measure by cosine using Collobert and Weston's word embeddings. Meet has a abstract meaning itself, but after prototype projection with matrix constructed by word vectors of W (VerbOf, criterion), meet is more close to meaning of satisfy.",
"html": null,
"num": null
},
"TABREF2": {
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table/>",
"text": "shows several examples of how meanings change after prototype projection using word embeddings ofCollobert and Weston (2008).2",
"html": null,
"num": null
},
"TABREF5": {
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td>: Results of the different compositionality models</td></tr><tr><td>on the similarity task. The number of prototype words</td></tr><tr><td>m = 20 in all our models. Our model (f =Addition and</td></tr><tr><td>NLM) achieves the new state-of-the-art performance for</td></tr><tr><td>this task (\u03c1 = 0.44).</td></tr></table>",
"text": "",
"html": null,
"num": null
},
"TABREF7": {
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table/>",
"text": "Variants of the full co-compositional model, based on how subject, verb, and object vector representations are included. prpj indicates that prototype projection is used. + indicates that the vector is added without projection first. Blank indicates that the vector is not used in the final compositional score.",
"html": null,
"num": null
}
}
}
} |