DOCSLIB.ORG

Leveraging Frame Semantics and Distributional Semantics for Unsupervised Semantic Slot Induction in Spoken Dialogue Systems (Extended Abstract)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Leveraging Frame Semantics and Distributional Semantics for Unsupervised Semantic Slot Induction in Spoken Dialogue Systems (Extended Abstract) Leveraging Frame Semantics and Distributional Semantics for Unsupervised Semantic Slot Induction in Spoken Dialogue Systems (Extended Abstract) Yun-Nung Chen, William Yang Wang, and Alexander I. Rudnicky School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA fyvchen, yww, [email protected] Abstract for designing spoken dialogue systems (SDS) in an unsupervised fashion. Comparing to the tradi- Although the spoken dialogue system tional approach where domain experts and devel- community in speech and the semantic opers manually define the semantic ontology for parsing community in natural language SDS, the unsupervised approach has the advan- processing share many similar tasks and tages to reduce the costs and avoid human induced approaches, they have progressed inde- bias. pendently over years with few interac- On the other hand, the distributional view of se- tions. This paper connects two worlds to mantics hypothesizes that words occurring in the automatically induce the semantic slots for same contexts may have similar meanings (Har- spoken dialogue systems using frame and ris, 1954). With the recent advance of deep learn- distributional semantic theories. Given ing techniques, the continuous representation of a collection of unlabeled audio, we ex- word embeddings has further boosted the state- ploit continuous-valued word embeddings of-the-art results in many applications, such as to augment a probabilistic frame-semantic frame identification (Hermann et al., 2014), sen- parser that identifies key semantic slots timent analysis (Socher et al., 2013), language in an unsupervised fashion. Our exper- modeling (Mikolov, 2012), and sentence comple- iments on a real-world spoken dialogue tion (Mikolov et al., 2013a). dataset show that distributional word rep- In this paper, given a collection of unlabeled resentation significantly improves adapta- raw audio files, we investigate an unsupervised ap- tion from FrameNet-style parses of rec- proach for semantic slot induction. To do this, we ognized utterances to the target semantic use a state-of-the-art probabilistic frame-semantic space, that comparing to a state-of-the-art parsing approach (Das et al., 2010; Das et al., baseline, a 12% relative mean average pre- 2014), and perform an adaptation process, map- cision improvement is achieved, and that ping the generic FrameNet (Baker et al., 1998) the proposed technology can be used to re- style semantic parses to the target semantic space duce the costs for designing task-oriented that is suitable for the domain-specific conversa- spoken dialogue systems. tion settings. We utilize continuous word em- beddings trained on very large external corpora 1 Introduction (e.g. Google News and Freebase) for the adap- Frame semantics is a linguistic theory that de- tation process. To evaluate the performance of our fines meaning as a coherent structure of re- approach, we compare the automatically induced lated concepts (Fillmore, 1982). Although there semantic slots with the reference slots created by has been some successful applications in natural domain experts. Empirical experiments show that language processing (Hedegaard and Simonsen, the slot creation results generated by our approach 2011; Coyne et al., 2011; Hasan and Ng, 2013), align well with those of domain experts. this linguistically principled theory has not been 2 The Proposed Approach explored in the speech community until recently: Chen et al. (2013b) showed that it is possible to We build our approach on top of the recent suc- use probabilistic frame-semantic parsing to auto- cess of an unsupervised frame-semantic parsing matically induce and adapt the semantic ontology approach. Chen et al. (2013b) formulated the se- can i have a cheap restaurant 2.2 Continuous Space Word Representations To better adapt the FrameNet-style parses to the Frame: expensiveness target task-oriented SDS domain, we make use of FT LU: cheap continuous word vectors derived from a recurrent Frame: capability Frame: locale by use neural network architecture (Mikolov et al., 2010). FT LU: can FE Filler: i FT/FE LU: restaurant The recurrent neural network language models use Figure 1: An example of probabilistic frame- the context history to include long-distance in- semantic parsing on ASR output. FT: frame target. formation. Interestingly, the vector-space word FE: frame element. LU: lexical unit. representations learned from the language mod- els were shown to capture syntactic and semantic regularities (Mikolov et al., 2013c; Mikolov et al., mantic mapping and adaptation problem as a rank- 2013b). The word relationships are characterized ing problem, and proposed the use of unsupervised by vector offsets, where in the embedded space, clustering methods to differentiate the generic se- all pairs of words sharing a particular relation are mantic concepts from target semantic space for related by the same constant offset. Considering task-oriented dialogue systems. However, their that this distributional semantic theory may bene- clustering approach only performs on the small fit our SLU task, we leverage word representations in-domain training data, which may not be robust trained from large external data to differentiate se- enough. Therefore, this paper proposes a radical mantic concepts. extension of the previous approach: we aim at im- proving the semantic adaptation process by lever- 2.3 Slot Ranking Model aging distributed word representations. Our model ranks the slot candidates by integrat- ing two scores (Chen et al., 2013b): (1) the rela- 2.1 Probabilistic Semantic Parsing tive frequency of each candidate slot in the corpus, FrameNet is a linguistically-principled semantic since slots with higher frequency may be more resource (Baker et al., 1998), developed based on important. (2) the coherence of slot-fillers cor- the frame semantics theory (Fillmore, 1976). In responding to the slot. Assuming that domain- our approach, we parse all ASR-decoded utter- specific concepts focus on fewer topics and are ances in our corpus using SEMAFOR, a state-of- similar to each other, the coherence of the corre- the-art semantic parser for frame-semantic pars- sponding values can help measure the prominence ing (Das et al., 2010; Das et al., 2014), and ex- of the slots. tract all frames from semantic parsing results as w(s ) = (1 − α) · log f(s ) + α · log h(s ); (1) slot candidates, where the LUs that correspond to i i i the frames are extracted for slot-filling. For ex- where w(si) is the ranking weight for the slot can- ample, Figure 1, shows an example of SEMAFOR didate si, f(si) is the frequency of si from seman- parsing of an ASR-decoded text output. tic parsing, h(si) is the coherence measure of si, Since SEMAFOR was trained on FrameNet and α is the weighting parameter within the inter- annotation, which has a more generic frame- val [0; 1]. semantic context, not all the frames from the pars- For each slot si, we have the set of correspond- ing results can be used as the actual slots in the ing slot-fillers, V (si), constructed from the utter- domain-specific dialogue systems. For instance, ance including the slot si in the parsing results. in Figure 1, we see that the “expensiveness” The coherence measure h(si) is computed as av- and “locale by use” frames are essentially the erage pair-wise similarity of slot-fillers to evaluate key slots for the purpose of understanding in the if slot si corresponds to centralized or scattered restaurant query domain, whereas the “capability” topics. frame does not convey particular valuable infor- P mation for SLU. In order to fix this issue, we com- Sim(xa; xb) h(s ) = xa;xb2V (si);xa6=xb ; pute the prominence of these slot candidates, use i 2 (2) jV (si)j a slot ranking model to rerank the most frequent slots, and then generate a list of induced slots for where V (si) is the set of slot-fillers correspond- use in domain-specific dialogue systems. ing slot si, jV (si)j is the size of the set, and Sim(xa; xb) is the similarity between the pair of can be computed as the cosine similarity between fillers xa and xb. The slot si with higher h(si) rxa and rxb , called NeiSim(xa; xb). usually focuses on fewer topics, which is more The idea of using NeiSim(xa; xb) is very sim- specific and more likely for slots occurring in dia- ilar as using RepSim(xa; xb), where we assume logue systems. that words with similar concepts should have sim- We involve distributional semantics of slot- ilar representations and share similar neighbors. fillers xa and xb for deriving Sim(xa; xb). Hence, NeiSim(xa; xb) is larger when xa and xb Here, we propose two similarity measures: have more overlapped neighbors in continuous the representation-derived similarity and the space. neighbor-derived similarity as Sim(xa; xb) in (2). 3 Experiments 2.3.1 Representation-Derived Similarity We examine the slot induction accuracy by com- Given that distributional semantics can be cap- paring the reranked list of frame-semantic pars- tured by continuous space word representa- ing induced slots with the reference slots created tions (Mikolov et al., 2013c), we transform each by system developers. Furthermore, using the token x into its embedding vector x by pre-trained reranked list of induced slots and their associated distributed word representations, and then the sim- slot fillers (value), we compare against the human ilarity between a pair of slot-fillers x and x a b annotation. For the slot-filling task, we evaluate can be computed as their cosine similarity, called both on ASR transcripts of the raw audio, and on RepSim(x ; x ). a b the manual transcripts. We assume that words occurring in similar domains have similar word representations thus 3.1 Experimental Setup RepSim(x ; x ) will be larger when x and x are a b a b In this experiment, we used the Cambridge Uni- semantically related.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Semantic Computing
    SEMANTIC COMPUTING Lecture 7: Introduction to Distributional and Distributed Semantics Dagmar Gromann International Center For Computational Logic TU Dresden, 30 November 2018 Overview • Distributional Semantics • Distributed Semantics – Word Embeddings Dagmar Gromann, 30 November 2018 Semantic Computing 2 Distributional Semantics Dagmar Gromann, 30 November 2018 Semantic Computing 3 Distributional Semantics Definition • meaning of a word is the set of contexts in which it occurs • no other information is used than the corpus-derived information about word distribution in contexts (co-occurrence information of words) • semantic similarity can be inferred from proximity in contexts • At the very core: Distributional Hypothesis Distributional Hypothesis “similarity of meaning correlates with similarity of distribution” - Harris Z. S. (1954) “Distributional structure". Word, Vol. 10, No. 2-3, pp. 146-162 meaning = use = distribution in context => semantic distance Dagmar Gromann, 30 November 2018 Semantic Computing 4 Remember Lecture 1? Types of Word Meaning • Encyclopaedic meaning: words provide access to a large inventory of structured knowledge (world knowledge) • Denotational meaning: reference of a word to object/concept or its “dictionary definition” (signifier <-> signified) • Connotative meaning: word meaning is understood by its cultural or emotional association (positive, negative, neutral conntation; e.g. “She’s a dragon” in Chinese and English) • Conceptual meaning: word meaning is associated with the mental concepts it gives access to (e.g. prototype theory) • Distributional meaning: “You shall know a word by the company it keeps” (J.R. Firth 1957: 11) John Rupert Firth (1957). "A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-1955." In Special Volume of the Philological Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dagmar Gromann, 30 November 2018 Semantic Computing 5 Distributional Hypothesis in Practice Study by McDonald and Ramscar (2001): • The man poured from a balack into a handleless cup.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Word Embeddings and N-Gram Models for Dbpedia Type and Invalid Entity Detection †
    information Article A Comparison of Word Embeddings and N-gram Models for DBpedia Type and Invalid Entity Detection † Hanqing Zhou *, Amal Zouaq and Diana Inkpen School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Ottawa, Ottawa ON K1N 6N5, Canada; [email protected] (A.Z.); [email protected] (D.I.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-613-562-5800 † This paper is an extended version of our conference paper: Hanqing Zhou, Amal Zouaq, and Diana Inkpen. DBpedia Entity Type Detection using Entity Embeddings and N-Gram Models. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Semantic Web (KESW 2017), Szczecin, Poland, 8–10 November 2017, pp. 309–322. Received: 6 November 2018; Accepted: 20 December 2018; Published: 25 December 2018 Abstract: This article presents and evaluates a method for the detection of DBpedia types and entities that can be used for knowledge base completion and maintenance. This method compares entity embeddings with traditional N-gram models coupled with clustering and classification. We tackle two challenges: (a) the detection of entity types, which can be used to detect invalid DBpedia types and assign DBpedia types for type-less entities; and (b) the detection of invalid entities in the resource description of a DBpedia entity. Our results show that entity embeddings outperform n-gram models for type and entity detection and can contribute to the improvement of DBpedia’s quality, maintenance, and evolution. Keywords: semantic web; DBpedia; entity embedding; n-grams; type identification; entity identification; data mining; machine learning 1. Introduction The Semantic Web is defined by Berners-Lee et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributional Semantics
    Distributional Semantics Computational Linguistics: Jordan Boyd-Graber University of Maryland SLIDES ADAPTED FROM YOAV GOLDBERG AND OMER LEVY Computational Linguistics: Jordan Boyd-Graber UMD Distributional Semantics 1 / 19 j j From Distributional to Distributed Semantics The new kid on the block Deep learning / neural networks “Distributed” word representations Feed text into neural-net. Get back “word embeddings”. Each word is represented as a low-dimensional vector. Vectors capture “semantics” word2vec (Mikolov et al) Computational Linguistics: Jordan Boyd-Graber UMD Distributional Semantics 2 / 19 j j From Distributional to Distributed Semantics This part of the talk word2vec as a black box a peek inside the black box relation between word-embeddings and the distributional representation tailoring word embeddings to your needs using word2vec Computational Linguistics: Jordan Boyd-Graber UMD Distributional Semantics 3 / 19 j j word2vec Computational Linguistics: Jordan Boyd-Graber UMD Distributional Semantics 4 / 19 j j word2vec Computational Linguistics: Jordan Boyd-Graber UMD Distributional Semantics 5 / 19 j j word2vec dog cat, dogs, dachshund, rabbit, puppy, poodle, rottweiler, mixed-breed, doberman, pig sheep cattle, goats, cows, chickens, sheeps, hogs, donkeys, herds, shorthorn, livestock november october, december, april, june, february, july, september, january, august, march jerusalem tiberias, jaffa, haifa, israel, palestine, nablus, damascus katamon, ramla, safed teva pfizer, schering-plough, novartis, astrazeneca, glaxosmithkline, sanofi-aventis, mylan, sanofi, genzyme, pharmacia Computational Linguistics: Jordan Boyd-Graber UMD Distributional Semantics 6 / 19 j j Working with Dense Vectors Word Similarity Similarity is calculated using cosine similarity: dog~ cat~ sim(dog~ ,cat~ ) = dog~ · cat~ jj jj jj jj For normalized vectors ( x = 1), this is equivalent to a dot product: jj jj sim(dog~ ,cat~ ) = dog~ cat~ · Normalize the vectors when loading them.
    [Show full text]
  • Facing the Facts of Fake: a Distributional Semantics and Corpus Annotation Approach Bert Cappelle, Pascal Denis, Mikaela Keller
    Facing the facts of fake: a distributional semantics and corpus annotation approach Bert Cappelle, Pascal Denis, Mikaela Keller To cite this version: Bert Cappelle, Pascal Denis, Mikaela Keller. Facing the facts of fake: a distributional semantics and corpus annotation approach. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, De Gruyter, 2018, 6 (9-42). hal-01959609 HAL Id: hal-01959609 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01959609 Submitted on 18 Dec 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Facing the facts of fake: a distributional semantics and corpus annotation approach Bert Cappelle, Pascal Denis and Mikaela Keller Université de Lille, Inria Lille Nord Europe Fake is often considered the textbook example of a so-called ‘privative’ adjective, one which, in other words, allows the proposition that ‘(a) fake x is not (an) x’. This study tests the hypothesis that the contexts of an adjective-noun combination are more different from the contexts of the noun when the adjective is such a ‘privative’ one than when it is an ordinary (subsective) one. We here use ‘embeddings’, that is, dense vector representations based on word co-occurrences in a large corpus, which in our study is the entire English Wikipedia as it was in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentiment, Stance and Applications of Distributional Semantics
    Sentiment, stance and applications of distributional semantics Maria Skeppstedt Sentiment, stance and applications of distributional semantics Sentiment analysis (opinion mining) • Aims at determining the attitude of the speaker/ writer * In a chunk of text (e.g., a document or sentence) * Towards a certain topic • Categories: * Positive, negative, (neutral) * More detailed Movie reviews • Excruciatingly unfunny and pitifully unromantic. • The picture emerges as a surprisingly anemic disappointment. • A sensitive, insightful and beautifully rendered film. • The spark of special anime magic here is unmistak- able and hard to resist. • Maybe you‘ll be lucky , and there‘ll be a power outage during your screening so you can get your money back. Methods for sentiment analysis • Train a machine learning classifier • Use lexicon and rules • (or combine the methods) Train a machine learning classifier Annotating text and training the model Excruciatingly Excruciatingly unfunny unfunny Applying the model pitifully unromantic. The model pitifully unromantic. Examples of machine learning Frameworks • Scikit-learn • NLTK (natural language toolkit) • CRF++ Methods for sentiment analysis • Train a machine learning classifier * See for instance Socher et al. (2013) that classified English movie review sentences into positive and negative sentiment. * Trained their classifier on 11,855 manually labelled sentences. (R. Socher, A. Perelygin, J. Wu, J. Chuang, C. D. Manning, A. Y. Ng, C. Potts, Recursive deep models for semantic composition- ality over a sentiment treebank) Methods based on lexicons and rules • Lexicons for different polarities • Sometimes with different strength on the words * Does not need the large amount of training data that is typically required for machine learning methods * More flexible (e.g, to add new sentiment poles and new languages) Commercial use of sentiment analysis I want to retrieve everything positive and negative that is said about the products I sell.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Web-Interfaces for Vector Semantic Models with the Webvectors Toolkit
    Building Web-Interfaces for Vector Semantic Models with the WebVectors Toolkit Andrey Kutuzov Elizaveta Kuzmenko University of Oslo Higher School of Economics Oslo, Norway Moscow, Russia [email protected] eakuzmenko [email protected] Abstract approaches, which allowed to train distributional models with large amounts of raw linguistic data We present WebVectors, a toolkit that very fast. The most established word embedding facilitates using distributional semantic algorithms in the field are highly efficient Continu- models in everyday research. Our toolkit ous Skip-Gram and Continuous Bag-of-Words, im- has two main features: it allows to build plemented in the famous word2vec tool (Mikolov web interfaces to query models using a et al., 2013b; Baroni et al., 2014), and GloVe in- web browser, and it provides the API to troduced in (Pennington et al., 2014). query models automatically. Our system Word embeddings represent the meaning of is easy to use and can be tuned according words with dense real-valued vectors derived from to individual demands. This software can word co-occurrences in large text corpora. They be of use to those who need to work with can be of use in almost any linguistic task: named vector semantic models but do not want to entity recognition (Siencnik, 2015), sentiment develop their own interfaces, or to those analysis (Maas et al., 2011), machine translation who need to deliver their trained models to (Zou et al., 2013; Mikolov et al., 2013a), cor- a large audience. WebVectors features vi- pora comparison (Kutuzov and Kuzmenko, 2015), sualizations for various kinds of semantic word sense frequency estimation for lexicogra- queries.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributional Semantics for Understanding Spoken Meal Descriptions
    DISTRIBUTIONAL SEMANTICS FOR UNDERSTANDING SPOKEN MEAL DESCRIPTIONS Mandy Korpusik, Calvin Huang, Michael Price, and James Glass∗ MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA fkorpusik, calvinh, pricem, [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper presents ongoing language understanding experiments conducted as part of a larger effort to create a nutrition dialogue system that automatically extracts food concepts from a user’s spo- ken meal description. We first discuss the technical approaches to understanding, including three methods for incorporating word vec- tor features into conditional random field (CRF) models for seman- tic tagging, as well as classifiers for directly associating foods with properties. We report experiments on both text and spoken data from an in-domain speech recognizer. On text data, we show that the ad- dition of word vector features significantly improves performance, achieving an F1 test score of 90.8 for semantic tagging and 86.3 for food-property association. On speech, the best model achieves an F1 test score of 87.5 for semantic tagging and 86.0 for association. Fig. 1. A diagram of the flow of the nutrition system [4]. Finally, we conduct an end-to-end system evaluation through a user study with human ratings of 83% semantic tagging accuracy. Index Terms— CRF, Word vectors, Semantic tagging • We demonstrate a significant improvement in semantic tag- ging performance by adding word embedding features to a classifier. We explore features for both the raw vector values 1. INTRODUCTION and similarity to prototype words from each category. In ad- dition, improving semantic tagging performance benefits the For many patients with obesity, diet tracking is often time- subsequent task of associating foods with properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributional Semantics Today Introduction to the Special Issue Cécile Fabre, Alessandro Lenci
    Distributional Semantics Today Introduction to the special issue Cécile Fabre, Alessandro Lenci To cite this version: Cécile Fabre, Alessandro Lenci. Distributional Semantics Today Introduction to the special issue. Revue TAL, ATALA (Association pour le Traitement Automatique des Langues), 2015, Sémantique distributionnelle, 56 (2), pp.7-20. hal-01259695 HAL Id: hal-01259695 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01259695 Submitted on 26 Jan 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributional Semantics Today Introduction to the special issue Cécile Fabre* — Alessandro Lenci** * University of Toulouse, CLLE-ERSS ** University of Pisa, Computational Linguistics Laboratory ABSTRACT. This introduction to the special issue of the TAL journal on distributional seman- tics provides an overview of the current topics of this field and gives a brief summary of the contributions. RÉSUMÉ. Cette introduction au numéro spécial de la revue TAL consacré à la sémantique dis- tributionnelle propose un panorama des thèmes de recherche actuels dans ce champ et fournit un résumé succinct des contributions acceptées. KEYWORDS: Distributional Semantic Models, vector-space models, corpus-based semantics, se- mantic proximity, semantic relations, evaluation of distributional ressources. MOTS-CLÉS : Sémantique distributionnelle, modèles vectoriels, proximité sémantique, relations sémantiques, évaluation de ressources distributionnelles.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributional Semantics
    Distributional semantics Distributional semantics is a research area that devel- by populating the vectors with information on which text ops and studies theories and methods for quantifying regions the linguistic items occur in; paradigmatic sim- and categorizing semantic similarities between linguis- ilarities can be extracted by populating the vectors with tic items based on their distributional properties in large information on which other linguistic items the items co- samples of language data. The basic idea of distributional occur with. Note that the latter type of vectors can also semantics can be summed up in the so-called Distribu- be used to extract syntagmatic similarities by looking at tional hypothesis: linguistic items with similar distributions the individual vector components. have similar meanings. The basic idea of a correlation between distributional and semantic similarity can be operationalized in many dif- ferent ways. There is a rich variety of computational 1 Distributional hypothesis models implementing distributional semantics, includ- ing latent semantic analysis (LSA),[8] Hyperspace Ana- The distributional hypothesis in linguistics is derived logue to Language (HAL), syntax- or dependency-based from the semantic theory of language usage, i.e. words models,[9] random indexing, semantic folding[10] and var- that are used and occur in the same contexts tend to ious variants of the topic model. [1] purport similar meanings. The underlying idea that “a Distributional semantic models differ primarily with re- word is characterized by the company it keeps” was pop- spect to the following parameters: ularized by Firth.[2] The Distributional Hypothesis is the basis for statistical semantics. Although the Distribu- • tional Hypothesis originated in linguistics,[3] it is now re- Context type (text regions vs.
    [Show full text]
  • A Vector Space for Distributional Semantics for Entailment ∗
    A Vector Space for Distributional Semantics for Entailment ∗ James Henderson and Diana Nicoleta Popa Xerox Research Centre Europe [email protected] and [email protected] unk f g f Abstract ⇒ ¬ unk 1 0 0 0 Distributional semantics creates vector- f 1 1 0 0 space representations that capture many g 1 0 1 0 forms of semantic similarity, but their re- f 1 0 0 1 ¬ lation to semantic entailment has been less clear. We propose a vector-space model Table 1: Pattern of logical entailment between which provides a formal foundation for a nothing known (unk), two different features f and g known, and the complement of f ( f) known. distributional semantics of entailment. Us- ¬ ing a mean-field approximation, we de- velop approximate inference procedures ness with a distributional-semantic model of hy- and entailment operators over vectors of ponymy detection. probabilities of features being known (ver- Unlike previous vector-space models of entail- sus unknown). We use this framework ment, the proposed framework explicitly models to reinterpret an existing distributional- what information is unknown. This is a crucial semantic model (Word2Vec) as approxi- property, because entailment reflects what infor- mating an entailment-based model of the mation is and is not known; a representation y en- distributions of words in contexts, thereby tails a representation x if and only if everything predicting lexical entailment relations. In that is known given x is also known given y. Thus, both unsupervised and semi-supervised we model entailment in a vector space where each experiments on hyponymy detection, we dimension represents something we might know.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hybrid Distributional and Knowledge-Based Model of Lexical Semantics
    A Hybrid Distributional and Knowledge-based Model of Lexical Semantics Nikolaos Aletras Mark Stevenson Department of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science, University College London, University of Sheffield, Gower Street, Regent Court, 211 Portobello, London WC1E 6BT Sheffield S1 4DP United Kingdom United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected] Abstract which makes it straightforward to identify ones that are ambiguous. For example, these resources would A range of approaches to the representa- include multiple meanings for the word ball includ- tion of lexical semantics have been explored ing the ‘event’ and ‘sports equipment’ senses. How- within Computational Linguistics. Two of the ever, the fact that there are multiple meanings as- most popular are distributional and knowledge- sociated with ambiguous lexical items can also be based models. This paper proposes hybrid models of lexical semantics that combine the problematic since it may not be straightforward to advantages of these two approaches. Our mod- identify which one is being used for an instance of an els provide robust representations of synony- ambiguous word in text. This issue has lead to signif- mous words derived from WordNet. We also icant exploration of the problem of Word Sense Dis- make use of WordNet’s hierarcy to refine the ambiguation (Ide and Veronis,´ 1998; Navigli, 2009). synset vectors. The models are evaluated on More recently distributional semantics has become two widely explored tasks involving lexical semantics: lexical similarity and Word Sense a popular approach to representing lexical semantics Disambiguation. The hybrid models are found (Turney and Pantel, 2010; Erk, 2012). These ap- to perform better than standard distributional proaches are based on the premise that the semantics models and have the additional benefit of mod- of lexical items can be modelled by their context elling polysemy.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing BERT As a Distributional Semantics Model
    Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics Volume 3 Article 34 2020 What do you mean, BERT? Assessing BERT as a Distributional Semantics Model Timothee Mickus Université de Lorraine, CNRS, ATILF, [email protected] Denis Paperno Utrecht University, [email protected] Mathieu Constant Université de Lorraine, CNRS, ATILF, [email protected] Kees van Deemter Utrecht University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/scil Part of the Computational Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Mickus, Timothee; Paperno, Denis; Constant, Mathieu; and van Deemter, Kees (2020) "What do you mean, BERT? Assessing BERT as a Distributional Semantics Model," Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics: Vol. 3 , Article 34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/t778-ja71 Available at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/scil/vol3/iss1/34 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. What do you mean, BERT? Assessing BERT as a Distributional Semantics Model Timothee Mickus Denis Paperno Mathieu Constant Kees van Deemter Universite´ de Lorraine Utrecht University Universite´ de Lorraine Utrecht University CNRS, ATILF [email protected] CNRS, ATILF [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract based on BERT. Furthermore, BERT serves both as a strong baseline and as a basis for a fine- Contextualized word embeddings, i.e. vector tuned state-of-the-art word sense disambiguation representations for words in context, are nat- urally seen as an extension of previous non- pipeline (Wang et al., 2019a).
    [Show full text]