4,912 research outputs found

    Embeddings for word sense disambiguation: an evaluation study

    Get PDF
    Recent years have seen a dramatic growth in the popularity of word embeddings mainly owing to their ability to capture semantic information from massive amounts of textual content. As a result, many tasks in Natural Language Processing have tried to take advantage of the potential of these distributional models. In this work, we study how word embeddings can be used in Word Sense Disambiguation, one of the oldest tasks in Natural Language Processing and Artificial Intelligence. We propose different methods through which word embeddings can be leveraged in a state-of-the-art supervised WSD system architecture, and perform a deep analysis of how different parameters affect performance. We show how a WSD system that makes use of word embeddings alone, if designed properly, can provide significant performance improvement over a state-of-the-art WSD system that incorporates several standard WSD features

    Do Multi-Sense Embeddings Improve Natural Language Understanding?

    Full text link
    Learning a distinct representation for each sense of an ambiguous word could lead to more powerful and fine-grained models of vector-space representations. Yet while `multi-sense' methods have been proposed and tested on artificial word-similarity tasks, we don't know if they improve real natural language understanding tasks. In this paper we introduce a multi-sense embedding model based on Chinese Restaurant Processes that achieves state of the art performance on matching human word similarity judgments, and propose a pipelined architecture for incorporating multi-sense embeddings into language understanding. We then test the performance of our model on part-of-speech tagging, named entity recognition, sentiment analysis, semantic relation identification and semantic relatedness, controlling for embedding dimensionality. We find that multi-sense embeddings do improve performance on some tasks (part-of-speech tagging, semantic relation identification, semantic relatedness) but not on others (named entity recognition, various forms of sentiment analysis). We discuss how these differences may be caused by the different role of word sense information in each of the tasks. The results highlight the importance of testing embedding models in real applications

    RNNs Implicitly Implement Tensor Product Representations

    Full text link
    Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) can learn continuous vector representations of symbolic structures such as sequences and sentences; these representations often exhibit linear regularities (analogies). Such regularities motivate our hypothesis that RNNs that show such regularities implicitly compile symbolic structures into tensor product representations (TPRs; Smolensky, 1990), which additively combine tensor products of vectors representing roles (e.g., sequence positions) and vectors representing fillers (e.g., particular words). To test this hypothesis, we introduce Tensor Product Decomposition Networks (TPDNs), which use TPRs to approximate existing vector representations. We demonstrate using synthetic data that TPDNs can successfully approximate linear and tree-based RNN autoencoder representations, suggesting that these representations exhibit interpretable compositional structure; we explore the settings that lead RNNs to induce such structure-sensitive representations. By contrast, further TPDN experiments show that the representations of four models trained to encode naturally-occurring sentences can be largely approximated with a bag of words, with only marginal improvements from more sophisticated structures. We conclude that TPDNs provide a powerful method for interpreting vector representations, and that standard RNNs can induce compositional sequence representations that are remarkably well approximated by TPRs; at the same time, existing training tasks for sentence representation learning may not be sufficient for inducing robust structural representations.Comment: Accepted to ICLR 201
    • …
    corecore