| Challenge: | Word embeddings trained with dependency contexts excel at different tasks, and enhanced dependencies often improve performance. |
| Approach: | They propose to use dependency-based word embeddings to capture semantic similarity rather than relatedness. |
| Outcome: | The results show that word embeddings trained with Universal and Stanford dependencies excel at different tasks and that enhanced dependencies often improve performance. |
Similar Papers
On the Correlation of Word Embedding Evaluation Metrics (2020.lrec-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Word embeddings are geometrical representations of word paradigmatics and syntagmatics. |
| Approach: | They propose to investigate evaluation metrics on various datasets to find correlations . they propose a fast solution to select the best word embeddings among many others . |
| Outcome: | The proposed method could be used to select the best word embeddings among many others. |
Revisiting the Context Window for Cross-lingual Word Embeddings (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing approaches to mapping-based cross-lingual word embeddings are based on the assumption that the source and target embeddable spaces are structurally similar. |
| Approach: | They propose to use different context windows to evaluate bilingual word embeddings in various languages, domains, and tasks. |
| Outcome: | The size of both the source and target window improves bilingual lexicon induction, especially on frequent nouns. |
More Embeddings, Better Sequence Labelers? (2020.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work suggests contextual embeddings improve sequence labeling accuracy . but, there is no definite conclusion on whether concatenating different kinds of embeddables is effective . |
| Approach: | They propose a family of contextual embeddings that improves sequence labeling accuracy . they conduct extensive experiments on 3 tasks over 18 datasets and 8 languages . |
| Outcome: | The proposed family of contextual embeddings improves the accuracy of sequence labelers over non-contextual embedders. |
What’s in Your Embedding, And How It Predicts Task Performance (C18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Attempts to find a single technique for general-purpose intrinsic evaluation of word embeddings have so far not been successful. |
| Approach: | They propose a method that quantifies interpretable characteristics of word vector neighborhoods and shows how they correlate with performance on 14 extrinsic and intrinsic task datasets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach enables multi-faceted evaluation, parameter search, and generally – a more principled, hypothesis-driven approach to development of distributional semantic representations. |
An Empirical Study of the Downstream Reliability of Pre-Trained Word Embeddings (2020.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Pre-trained word embeddings have been shown to improve the performance of neural networks across a wide variety of tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose two new metrics to understand the downstream reliability of word embeddings. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can improve performance with slight changes to the training data, but it can also fail with multiple neural network architectures. |
Analyzing the Surprising Variability in Word Embedding Stability Across Languages (2021.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Word embeddings are powerful representations that form the foundation of many natural language processing architectures. |
| Approach: | They explore word embedding stability in a wide range of languages to gain insight into their stability. |
| Outcome: | The proposed results provide insights into word embedding stability in English and other languages. |
Contextual Embeddings: When Are They Worth It? (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | In recent years, rich contextual embeddings have enabled rapid progress on benchmarks like GLUE, but require significant computational resources during pretraining and during downstream task training and inference. |
| Approach: | They empirically compare contextual embeddings with classic pretrained embedders and a random word embeddable with a simple baseline. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models perform within 5 to 10% accuracy on industry-scale data. |
Just Rank: Rethinking Evaluation with Word and Sentence Similarities (2022.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Word and sentence similarity tasks are the de facto evaluation method for embeddings. |
| Approach: | They propose a new intrinsic evaluation method called EvalRank which shows a much stronger correlation with downstream tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method shows a much stronger correlation with downstream tasks and is released for future benchmarking purposes. |
Are Word Embeddings Really a Bad Fit for the Estimation of Thematic Fit? (2020.lrec-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | In recent years, vectors derived from neural network training have replaced count-based distributional semantic models as a de facto standard for word representation in NLP. |
| Approach: | They propose to evaluate count models and word embeddings on thematic fit estimation by taking into account a larger number of parameters and verb roles and introducing dependency-based embedders in the comparison. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms count models and word embeddings in thematic fit estimation tasks while introducing dependency-based embedders. |
Is Language Modeling Enough? Evaluating Effective Embedding Combinations (2020.lrec-1)
Copied to clipboard
Rudolf Schneider, Tom Oberhauser, Paul Grundmann, Felix Alexander Gers, Alexander Loeser, Steffen Staab
| Challenge: | specialized embeddings are not available for tasks like entity linking or paragraph classification. |
| Approach: | They evaluate whether universal embeddings can be complemented by specialized embeddables. |
| Outcome: | The proposed embeddings outperform state-of-the-art embeddables without any fine-tuning. |