File size: 114,290 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 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 |
{
"paper_id": "I17-1021",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T07:38:18.467024Z"
},
"title": "Distributional Modeling on a Diet: One-shot Word Learning from Text Only",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Su",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roller",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "The University of Texas at Austin",
"location": {}
},
"email": "roller@cs.utexas.edu"
},
{
"first": "Katrin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Erk",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "katrin.erk@mail.utexas.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We test whether distributional models can do one-shot learning of definitional properties from text only. Using Bayesian models, we find that first learning overarching structure in the known data, regularities in textual contexts and in properties, helps one-shot learning, and that individual context items can be highly informative. Our experiments show that our model can learn properties from a single exposure when given an informative utterance.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "I17-1021",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We test whether distributional models can do one-shot learning of definitional properties from text only. Using Bayesian models, we find that first learning overarching structure in the known data, regularities in textual contexts and in properties, helps one-shot learning, and that individual context items can be highly informative. Our experiments show that our model can learn properties from a single exposure when given an informative utterance.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "When humans encounter an unknown word in text, even with a single instance, they can often infer approximately what it means, as in this example from Lazaridou et al. (2014) :",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 173,
"text": "Lazaridou et al. (2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We found a cute, hairy wampimuk sleeping behind the tree.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "People who hear this sentence typically guess that a wampimuk is an animal, or even that it is a mammal. Distributional models, which describe the meaning of a word in terms of its observed contexts (Turney and Pantel, 2010) , have been suggested as a model for how humans learn word meanings (Landauer and Dumais, 1997) . However, distributional models typically need hundreds of instances of a word to derive a highquality representation for it, while humans can often infer a passable meaning approximation from one sentence only (as in the above example). This phenomenon is known as fast mapping (Carey and Bartlett, 1978) , Our primary modeling objective in this paper is to explore a plausible model for fastmapping learning from textual context.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 199,
"end": 224,
"text": "(Turney and Pantel, 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 320,
"text": "(Landauer and Dumais, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 601,
"end": 627,
"text": "(Carey and Bartlett, 1978)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "While there is preliminary evidence that fast mapping can be modeled distributionally (Lazaridou et al., 2016) , it is unclear what enables it.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 110,
"text": "(Lazaridou et al., 2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "How do humans infer word meanings from so little data? This question has been studied for grounded word learning, when the learner perceives an object in non-linguistic context that corresponds to the unknown word. The literature emphasizes the importance of learning general knowledge or overarching structure, which we define as the information that is learned by accumulation across concepts (e.g. regularities in property co-occurrence), across all concepts (Kemp et al., 2007) , In grounded word learning, overarching structure that has been proposed includes knowledge about which properties. For example knowledge about which properties are most important to object naming (Smith et al., 2002; Colunga and Smith, 2005) , or a taxonomy of concepts (Xu and Tenenbaum, 2007) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 462,
"end": 481,
"text": "(Kemp et al., 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 680,
"end": 700,
"text": "(Smith et al., 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 725,
"text": "Colunga and Smith, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 754,
"end": 778,
"text": "(Xu and Tenenbaum, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF35"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper we study models for fast mapping in word learning 1 from textual context alone, using probabilistic distributional models. Our task differs from the grounded case in that we do not perceive any object labeled by the unknown word. In that context, learning word meaning means learning the associated definitional properties and their weights (see Section 3). For the sake of interpretability, we focus on learning definitional properties We ask what kinds of overarching structure in distributional contexts and in properties will be helpful for one-shot word learning.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We focus on learning from syntactic context. Distributional representations of syntactic context are directly interpretable as selectional constraints, which in manually created resources are typically characterized through high-level taxonomy classes (Kipper-Schuler, 2005; Fillmore et al., 2003) . So they should provide good evidence for the meaning of role fillers. Also, it has been shown that selectional constraints can be learned distributionally (Erk et al., 2010; \u00d3 S\u00e9aghdha and Korhonen, 2014; Ritter et al., 2010) . However, our point will not be that syntax is needed for fast word learning, but that it helps to observe overarching structure, with syntactic context providing a clear test bed.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 252,
"end": 274,
"text": "(Kipper-Schuler, 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 297,
"text": "Fillmore et al., 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 473,
"text": "(Erk et al., 2010;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 504,
"text": "\u00d3 S\u00e9aghdha and Korhonen, 2014;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 505,
"end": 525,
"text": "Ritter et al., 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We test two types of overarching structure for their usefulness in fast mapping. First, we hypothesize that it is helpful to learn about commonalities among context items, which enables mapping from contexts to properties. For example the syntactic contexts eat-dobj and cook-dobj should prefer similar targets: things that are cooked are also things that are eaten (Hypothesis H1).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The second hypothesis is that it will be useful to learn co-occurrence patterns between properties. That is, we hypothesize that in learning an entity is a mammal, we may also infer it is four-legged (Hypothesis H2).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We do not intent to make strong cognitive claims, for which additional experimentation will be in order, and we leave this for future work. This work sets its goal on building a plausible computational model that models human fast-mapping in learning (i) well from limited grounded data, (ii) effectively from only one instance.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Fast mapping and textual context. Fast mapping (Carey and Bartlett, 1978) is the human ability to construct provisional word meaning representations after one or few exposures. An important reason for why humans can do fast mapping is that they acquire overarching structure that constrains learning (Smith et al., 2002; Colunga and Smith, 2005; Kemp et al., 2007; Xu and Tenenbaum, 2007; Maas and Kemp, 2009) . In this paper, we ask what forms of overarching structure will be useful for text-based word learning. Lazaridou et al. (2014) consider fast mapping for grounded word learning, mapping image data to distributional representations, which is in a way the mirror image of our task. Lazaridou et al. (2016) were the first to explore fast mapping for text-based word learning, using an extension to word2vec with both textual and visual features. However, they model the unknown word simply by averaging the vectors of known words in the sentence, and do not explore what types of knowl-edge enable fast mapping.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 73,
"text": "(Carey and Bartlett, 1978)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 320,
"text": "(Smith et al., 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 345,
"text": "Colunga and Smith, 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 364,
"text": "Kemp et al., 2007;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 388,
"text": "Xu and Tenenbaum, 2007;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF35"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 409,
"text": "Maas and Kemp, 2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 515,
"end": 538,
"text": "Lazaridou et al. (2014)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 691,
"end": 714,
"text": "Lazaridou et al. (2016)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Background",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Definitional properties. Feature norms are definitional properties collected from human participants. Feature norm datasets are available from McRae et al. (2005) and Vigliocco et al. (2004) . In this paper we use feature norms as our target representations of word meaning. There are several recent approaches that learn to map distributional representations to feature norms (Johns and Jones, 2012; Rubinstein et al., 2015; F\u0203g\u0203r\u0203\u015fan et al., 2015; Herbelot and Vecchi, 2015a) . We also map distributional information to feature norms, but we do it based on a single textual instance (one-shot learning).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 162,
"text": "McRae et al. (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 190,
"text": "Vigliocco et al. (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 400,
"text": "(Johns and Jones, 2012;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 425,
"text": "Rubinstein et al., 2015;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 449,
"text": "F\u0203g\u0203r\u0203\u015fan et al., 2015;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 450,
"end": 477,
"text": "Herbelot and Vecchi, 2015a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Background",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In the current paper we use the Quantified McRae (QMR) dataset (Herbelot and Vecchi, 2015b) , which extends the McRae et al. (2005) feature norms by ratings on the proportion of category members that have a property, and the Animal dataset (Herbelot, 2013) , which is smaller but has the same shape. For example, most alligators are dangerous. The quantifiers are given probabilistic interpretations, so if most alligators are dangerous, the probability for a random alligator to be dangerous would be 0.95. This makes this dataset a good fit for our probabilistic distributional model. We discuss QMR and the Animal data further in Section 4.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 91,
"text": "(Herbelot and Vecchi, 2015b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 131,
"text": "McRae et al. (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 256,
"text": "(Herbelot, 2013)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Background",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Bayesian models in lexical semantics. We use Bayesian models for the sake of interpretability and because the existing definitional property datasets are small. The Bayesian models in lexical semantics that are most related to our approach are Dinu and Lapata (2010) , who represent word meanings as distributions over latent topics that approximate senses, and Andrews et al. (2009) and Roller and Schulte im Walde (2013), who use multi-modal extensions of Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) models (Blei et al., 2003) to represent co-occurrences of textual context and definitional features.\u00d3 S\u00e9aghdha (2010) and Ritter et al. (2010) use Bayesian approaches to model selectional preferences.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 244,
"end": 266,
"text": "Dinu and Lapata (2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 383,
"text": "Andrews et al. (2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 518,
"text": "(Blei et al., 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 614,
"end": 634,
"text": "Ritter et al. (2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Background",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In this section we develop a series of models to test our hypothesis that acquiring general knowledge is helpful to word learning, in particular knowledge about similarities between context items (H1) and co-occurrences between properties (H2). The count-based model will implement neither hypoth-esis, while the bimodal topic model will implement both. To test the hypotheses separately, we employ two clustering approaches via Bernoulli Mixtures, which we use as extensions to the countbased model and bimodal topic model.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Models",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Independent Bernoulli condition. Let Q be a set of definitional properties, C a set of concepts that the learner knows about, and V a vocabulary of context items. For most of our models, context items w \u2208 V will be predicate-role pairs such as eat-dobj. The task is determine properties that apply to an unknown concept u \u2208 C. Any concept c \u2208 C is associated with a vector c Ind (where \"Ind\" stands for \"independent Bernoulli probabilities\") of |Q| probabilities, where the i-th entry of c Ind is the probability that an instance of concept c would have property q i . These probabilities are independent Bernoulli probabilities. For instance, alligator Ind would have an entry of 0.95 for dangerous. An instance c \u2208 {0, 1} |Q| of a concept c \u2208 C is a vector of zeros and ones drawn from c Ind , where an entry of 1 at position i means that this instance has the property q i .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Count-based Model",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The model proceeds in two steps. First it learns property probabilities for context items w \u2208 V . The model observes instances c occurring textually with context item w, and learns property probabilities for w, where the probability that w has for a property q indicates the probability that w would appear as a context item with an instance that has property q. In the second step the model uses the acquired context item representations to learn property probabilities for an unknown concept u. When u appears with w, the context item w \"imagines\" an instance (samples it from its property probabilities), and uses this instance to update the property probabilities of u. Instead of making point estimates, the model represents its uncertainty about the probability of a property through a Beta distribution, a distribution over Bernoulli probabilities. As a Beta distribution is characterized by two parameters \u03b1 and \u03b2, we associate each context item w \u2208 V with vectors w \u03b1 \u2208 R |Q| and w \u03b2 \u2208 R |Q| , where the i-th \u03b1 and \u03b2 values are the parameters of the Beta distribution for property q i . When an instance c is observed with context item w, we do a Bayesian update on w simply as",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Count-based Model",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "w \u03b1 = w \u03b1 + c w \u03b2 = w \u03b2 + (1 \u2212 c)",
"eq_num": "(1)"
}
],
"section": "The Count-based Model",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "because the Beta distribution is the conjugate prior of the Bernoulli. To draw an instance from w, we draw it from the predictive posterior probabilities of its Beta distributions, w Ind = w \u03b1 /(w \u03b1 + w \u03b2 ). Likewise, we associate an unknown concept u with vectors u \u03b1 and u \u03b2 . When the model observes u in the context of w, it draws an instance from w Ind , and performs a Bayesian update as in (1) on the vectors associated with u. After training, the property probabilities for u are again the posterior predictive probabilities u Ind = u \u03b1 /(u \u03b1 +u \u03b2 ). The model can be used for multi-shot learning and oneshot learning in the same way.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Count-based Model",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Multinomial condition. We also test a multinomial variant of the count-based model, for greater comparability with the LDA model below. Here, the concept representation c Mult is a multinomial distribution over the properties in Q. (That is, all the properties compete in this model.) An instance of concept c is now a single property, drawn from c's multinomial. The representation of a context item w, and also the representation of the unknown concept u, is a Dirichlet distribution with |Q| parameters. Bayesian update of the representation of w based on an occurrence with c, and likewise Bayesian update of the representation of u based on an occurrence with w, is straightforward again, as the Dirichlet distribution is the conjugate prior of the multinomial.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Count-based Model",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The two count-based models do not implement either of our two hypotheses. They compute separate selectional constraints for each context item, and do not attend to co-occurrences between properties. In the experiments below, the count-based models will be listed as Count Independent and Count Multinomial.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Count-based Model",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "We use an extension of LDA (Blei et al., 2003) to implement our hypotheses on the usefulness of overarching structure, both commonalities in selectional constraints across predicates, and cooccurrence of properties across concepts. In particular, we build on Andrews et al. (2009) in using a bimodal topic model, in which a single topic simultaneously generates both a context item and a property. We further build on Dinu and Lapata (2010) in having a \"pseudo-document\" for each concept c to represent its observed occurrences. In our case, this pseudo-document contains pairs of a context item w \u2208 V and a property q meaning that w has been observed to occur with an instance of c that had q. The generative story is as follows. For each known concept c, draw a multinomial \u03b8 c over topics. For each topic z, draw a multinomial \u03c6 z over context items w \u2208 V , and a multinomial \u03c8 z over properties q \u2208 Q. To generate an entry for c's pseudo-document, draw a topic z \u223c M ult(\u03b8 c ). Then, from z, simultaneously draw a context item from \u03c6 z and a property from \u03c8 z . Figure 1 shows the plate diagram for this model.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 46,
"text": "(Blei et al., 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 280,
"text": "Andrews et al. (2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 440,
"text": "Dinu and Lapata (2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1066,
"end": 1074,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Bimodal Topic Model",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u2208 Q, \u03b1 \u03b8 c z w q \u03c6 z \u03c8 z \u03b2 \u03b3 (w, q) D z z",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Bimodal Topic Model",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "To infer properties for an unknown concept u, we create a pseudo-document for u containing just the observed context items, no properties, as those are not observed. From this pseudo-document d u we infer the topic distribution \u03b8 u . Then the probability of a property q given d u is",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Bimodal Topic Model",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "P (q|d u ) = z P (z|\u03b8 u )P (q|\u03c8 z )",
"eq_num": "(2)"
}
],
"section": "The Bimodal Topic Model",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "For the one-shot condition, where we only observe a single context item w with u, this simplifies to",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Bimodal Topic Model",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "P (q|w) = z P (z|w)P (q|\u03c8 z )",
"eq_num": "(3)"
}
],
"section": "The Bimodal Topic Model",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "We refer to this model as bi-TM below. The topics of this model implement our hypothesis H1 by grouping context items that tend to occur with the same concepts and the same properties. The topics also implement our hypothesis H2 by grouping properties that tend to occur with the same concepts and the same context items. By using multinomials \u03c8 z it makes the simplifying assumption that all properties compete, like the Count Multinomial model above.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Bimodal Topic Model",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "With the Count models, we investigate word learning without any overarching structures. With the bi-TMs, we investigate word learning with both types of overarching structures at once. In order to evaluate each of the two hypotheses separately, we use clustering with Bernoulli Mixture models of either the context items or the properties. A Bernoulli Mixture model (Juan and Vidal, 2004) assumes that a population of m-dimensional binary vectors x has been generated by a set of mixture components K, each of which is a vector of m Bernoulli probabilities:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 366,
"end": 388,
"text": "(Juan and Vidal, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bernoulli Mixtures",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "p(x) = |K| k=1 p(k)p(x|k)",
"eq_num": "(4)"
}
],
"section": "Bernoulli Mixtures",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "A Bernoulli Mixture can represent co-occurrence patterns between the m random variables it models without assuming competition between them.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bernoulli Mixtures",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "To test the effect of modeling cross-predicate selectional constraints, we estimate a Bernoulli Mixture model from n instances w for each w \u2208 V , sampled from w Ind (which is learned as in the Count Independent model). Given a Bernoulli Mixture model of |K| components, we then assign each context item w to its closest mixture component as follows. Say the instances of w used to estimate the Bernoulli Mixture were {w 1 , . . . , w n }, then we assign w to the component",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bernoulli Mixtures",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "k w = argmax k n j=1 p(k|w j )",
"eq_num": "(5)"
}
],
"section": "Bernoulli Mixtures",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "We then re-train the representations of context items in the Count Multinomial condition, treating each occurrence of c with context w as an occurrence of c with k w . This yields a Count Multinomial model called Count BernMix H1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bernoulli Mixtures",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "To test the effect of modeling property co-occurrences, we estimate a |K|-component Bernoulli Mixture model from n instances of each known concept c \u2208 C, sampled from c Ind . We then represent each concept c by a vector c Mult , a multinomial with |K| parameters, as follows. Say the instances of c used to estimate the Bernoulli Mixture were {c 1 , . . . , c n }, then the k-th entry in c Mult is the average probability, over all c i , of being generated by component k:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bernoulli Mixtures",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "c k = 1 n n j=1 p(k|c j )",
"eq_num": "(6)"
}
],
"section": "Bernoulli Mixtures",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "This can be used as a Count Multinomial model where the entries in c Mult stand for Bernoulli Mixture components rather than individual properties. We refer to it as Count BernMix H2. 2 Finally, we extend the bi-TM with the H2 Bernoulli Mixture in the same way as a Count Multinomial model, and list this extension as bi-TM BernMix H2. While the bi-TM already implements both H1 and H2, its assumption of competition between all properties is simplistic, and bi-TM BernMix H2 tests whether lifting this assumption will yield a better model. We do not extend the bi-TM with the H1 Bernoulli Mixture, as the assumption of competition between context items that the bi-TM makes is appropriate.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Bernoulli Mixtures",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Definitional properties. As we use probabilistic models, we need probabilities of properties applying to concept instances. So the QMR dataset (Herbelot and Vecchi, 2015b) is ideally suited. QMR has 532 concrete noun concepts, each associated with a set of quantified properties. The quantifiers have been given probabilistic interpretations, mapping all\u21921, most\u21920.95, some\u21920.35, few\u21920.05, none\u21920. 3 Each concept/property pair was judged by 3 raters. We choose the majority rating when it exists, and otherwise the minimum proposed rating. To address sparseness, especially for the one-shot learning setting, we omit properties that are named for fewer than 5 concepts. This leaves us with 503 concepts and 220 properties We intentionally choose this small dataset: One of our main objectives is to explore the possibility of learning effectively from very limited training data. In addition, while the feature norm dataset is small, our distributional dataset (the BNC, see below) is not. The latter essentially serves as a pivot for us to propagate the knowledge from the feature norm data to the wider semantic space.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 171,
"text": "(Herbelot and Vecchi, 2015b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "It is a problem of both the original McRae et al. (2005) data and QMR that if a property is not named by participants, it is not listed, even if it applies. For example, the property four-legged 2 We use the H2 Bernoulli Mixture as a soft clustering because it is straightforward to do this through concept representations. For the H1 mixture, we did not see an obvious soft clustering, so we use it as a hard clustering. 3 The dataset also contains KIND properties that do not have probabilistic interpretations. Following Herbelot and Vecchi (2015a) we omit these properties.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 56,
"text": "McRae et al. (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 196,
"text": "2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 422,
"end": 423,
"text": "3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "is missing for alligator in QMR. So we additionally use the Animal dataset of Herbelot (2013) , where every property has a rating for every concept. The dataset comprises 72 animal concepts with quantification information for 54 properties.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 93,
"text": "Herbelot (2013)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Distributional data. We use the British National Corpus (BNC) (The BNC Consortium, 2007) , with dependency parses from Spacy. 4 As context items, we use pairs pred, dep of predicates pred that are content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs) but not stopwords, where a concept from the respective dataset (QMR, Animal) is a dependency child of pred via dep. In total we obtain a vocabulary of 500 QMR concepts and 72 Animal concepts that appear in the BNC, and 29,124 context items. We refer to this syntactic context as Syn. For comparison, we also use a baseline model with a bag-of-words (BOW) context window of 2 or 5 words, with stopwords removed.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 88,
"text": "(The BNC Consortium, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 127,
"text": "4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Models. We test our probabilistic models as defined in the previous section. While our focus is on one-shot learning, we also evaluate a multishot setting where we learn from the whole BNC, as a sanity check on our models. (We do not test our models in an incremental learning setting that adds one occurrence at a time. While this is possible in principle, the computational cost is prohibitive for the bi-TM.) We compare to the Partial Least Squares (PLS) model of Herbelot and Vecchi (2015a) 5 to see whether our models perform at state of the art levels. We also compare to a baseline that always predicts the probability of a property to be its relative frequency in the set C of known concepts (Baseline).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We can directly use the property probabilities in QMR and the Animal data as concept representations c Ind for the Count Independent model. For the Count Multinomial model, we never explicitly compute c Mult . To sample from it, we first sample an instance c \u2208 {0, 1} |Q| from the independent Bernoulli vector of c, c Ind . From the properties that apply to c, we sample one (with equal probabilities) as the observed property. All priors for the count-based models (Beta priors or Dirichlet priors, respectively) are set to 1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "For the bi-TM, a pseudo-document for a known concept c is generated as follows: Given an occurrence of known concept c with context item w in the BNC, we sample a property q from c (in the same way as for the Count Multinomial model), and add w, q to the pseudo-document for c. For training the bi-TM, we use collapsed Gibbs sampling (Steyvers and Griffiths, 2007) with 500 iterations for burn-in. The Dirichlet priors are uniformly set to 0.1 following Roller and Schulte im Walde (2013). We use 50 topics throughout.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 334,
"end": 364,
"text": "(Steyvers and Griffiths, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "For all our models, we report the average performance from 5 runs. For the PLS benchmark, we use 50 components with otherwise default settings, following Herbelot and Vecchi (2015a) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 154,
"end": 181,
"text": "Herbelot and Vecchi (2015a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Evaluation. We test all models using 5-fold cross validation and report average performance across the 5 folds. We evaluate performance using Mean Average Precision (MAP) , which tests to what extent a model ranks definitional properties in the same order as the gold data. Assume a system that predicts a ranking of n datapoints, where 1 is the highest-ranked, and assume that each datapoint i has a gold rating of I(i) \u2208 {0, 1}. This system obtains an Average Precision (AP) of",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "AP = 1 n i=1 I(i) n i=1 Prec i \u2022 I(i)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "where Prec i is precision at a cutoff of i. Mean Average Precision is the mean over multiple AP values. In our case, n = |Q|, and we compare a model-predicted ranking of property probabilities with a binary gold rating of whether the property applies to any instances of the given concept. For the one-shot evaluation, we make a separate prediction for each occurrence of an unknown concept u in the BNC, and report MAP by averaging over the AP values for all occurrences of u.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Experimental Setup",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Multi-shot learning. While our focus in this paper is on one-shot learning, we first test all models in a multi-shot setting. The aim is to see how well they perform when given ample amounts of training data, and to be able to compare their performance to an existing multi-shot model (as we will not have any related work to compare to for the one-shot setting.) The results are shown in Table 1 , where Syn shows results that use syntactic context (encoding selectional constraints) and BOW5 is a bag-of-words context with a window size of 5. We only compare our models to the baseline and benchmark for now, and do an indepth comparison of our models when we get to the one-shot task, which is our main focus. Across all models, the syntactic context outperforms the bag-of-words context. We also tested a bag-of-words context with window size 2 and found it to have a performance halfway between Syn and BOW5 throughout. This confirms our assumption that it is reasonable to focus on syntactic context, and for the rest of this paper, we test models with syntactic context only.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 389,
"end": 396,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results and Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Focusing on Syn conditions now, we see that almost all models outperform the property frequency baseline, though the MAP scores for the baseline do not fall far behind those of the weakest count-based models. 6 The best of our models perform on par with the PLS benchmark of Herbelot and Vecchi (2015a) on QMR, and on the Animal dataset they outperform the benchmark. Comparing the two datasets, we see that all models show better performance on the cleaner (and smaller) Animal dataset than on QMR. This is probably because QMR suffers from many false negatives (properties that apply but were not mentioned), while Animal does not. The Count Independent model shows similar performance here and throughout all later experiments to the Count Multinomial (even though it matches the construction of the QMR and Animal datasets better), so to avoid clutter we do not report on it further below.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 209,
"end": 210,
"text": "6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results and Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "One-shot learning. Table 2 : MAP scores, one-shot learning on the QMR and Animal datasets mance of our models on the one-shot learning task. We cannot evaluate the benchmark PLS as it is not suitable for one-shot learning. The baseline is the same as in Table 1 . The numbers shown are Average Precision (AP) values for learning from a single occurrence. Column all averages over all occurrences of a target in the BNC (using only context items that appeared at least 5 times in the BNC), and column oracle top-20 averages over the 20 context items that have the highest AP for the given target. As can be seen, AP varies widely across sentences: When we average over all occurrences of a target in the BNC, performance is close to baseline level. 7 But the most informative instances yield excellent information about an unknown concept, and lead to MAP values that are much higher than those achieved in multi-shot learning (Table 1) . We explore this more below. Comparing our models, we see that the bi-TM does much better throughout than any of the countbased models. Since the bi-TM model implements both cross-predicate selectional constraints (H1) and property co-occurrence (H2), we find both of our hypotheses confirmed by these results. The Bernoulli mixtures improved performance on the Animal dataset, with no clear pattern of which one improved performance more. On QMR, adding a Bernoulli mixture model harms performance across both the count-based and bi-TM models. We suspect that this is because of the false negative entries in QMR; an inspection of Bernoulli mixture H2 components supports this intuition, as the QMR ones were found to be of poorer quality than those for the Animal data.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 26,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 261,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 926,
"end": 935,
"text": "(Table 1)",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results and Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Comparing Tables 1 and 2 we see that they show 7 Context items with few occurrences in the corpus perform considerably worse than baseline, as their property distributions are dominated by the small number of concepts with which they appear. Table 4 : QMR one-shot: AP for top and bottom 5 context items of gown the same patterns of performance: Models that do better on the multi-shot task also do better on the one-shot task. This is encouraging in that it suggests that it should be possible to build incremental models that do well both in a low-data and an abundant-data setting. Table 3 looks in more detail at what it is that the models are learning by showing the five highestprobability properties they are predicting for the concept gown. The top two entries are multishot models, the third shows the one-shot result from the context item with the highest AP. The bi-TM results are very good in both the multi-shot and the one-shot setting, giving high probability to some quite specific properties like has sleeves. The count-based model shows a clear frequency bias in erroneously giving high probabilities to the two overall most frequent properties, made of metal and an animal. This is due to the additive nature of the Count model: In updating unknown concepts from context items, frequent properties are more likely to be sampled, and their effect accumulates as the model does not take into account interactions among context items. The bi-TM, which models these interactions, is much more robust to the effect of property frequency.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 24,
"text": "Tables 1 and 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 249,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
},
{
"start": 585,
"end": 592,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results and Discussion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Informativity. In Table 2 we saw that one-shot performance averaged over all context items in the whole corpus was quite bad, but that good, informative context items can yield high-quality property information. ther. For the concept gown, it shows the five context items that yielded the highest AP values, at the top undo-obj, with an AP as high as 0.7. This raises the question of whether we can predict the informativity of a context item. 8 We test three measures of informativity. The first is simply the frequency of the context item, with the rationale that more frequent context items should have more stable representations. Our second measure is based on entropy. For each context item w, we compute a distribution over properties as in the count-independent model, and measure the entropy of this distribution. If the distribution has few properties account for a majority of the probability mass, then w will have a low entropy, and would be expected to be more informative. Our third measure is based on the same intuition, that items with more \"concentrated\" selectional constraints should be more informative. If a context item w has been observed to occur with known concepts c 1 , . . . , c n , then this measure is the average cosine (AvgCos) of the property distributions (viewed as vectors) of any pair of c i , c j \u2208 {c 1 , . . . , c n }.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 444,
"end": 445,
"text": "8",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 25,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Count",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We evaluate the three informativity measures using Spearman's rho to determine the correlation of the informativity of a context item with the AP it produces for each unknown concept. We expect frequency and AvgCos to be positively correlated with AP, and entropy to be negatively correlated with AP. The result is shown in Table 5 . Again, all measures work better on the Animal data than on QMR, where they at best approach significance. The correlation is much better on the bi-TM models than on the count-based models, which is probably due to their higher-quality predictions. Overall, AvgCos emerges as the most robust indicator 8 Lazaridou et al. (2016) , who use a bag-of-words context in one-shot experiments, propose an informativity measure based on the number of contexst that constitute properties. we cannot do that with our syntactic context. Table 6 : QMR, bi-TM, one-shot: MAP by property type over (oracle) top 20 context items for informativity. 9 We now test AvgCos, as our best informativity measure, on its ability to select good context items. The last column of Table 2 shows MAP results for the top 20 context items based on their AvgCos values. The results are much below the oracle MAP (unsurprisingly, given the correlations in Table 5 ), but for QMR they are at the level of the multi-shot results of Table 1, showing that it is possible to some extent to automatically choose informative examples for one-shot learning. Properties by type. McRae et al. (2005) classify properties based on the brain region taxonomy of Cree and McRae (2003) . This enables us to test what types of properties are learned most easily in our fast-mapping setup by computing average AP separately by property type. To combat sparseness, we group property types into five groups, function (the function or use of an entity), taxonomic, visual, encyclopaedic, and other perceptual (e.g., sound). Intuitively, we would expect our contexts to best reflect taxonomic and function properties: Predicates that apply to noun target concepts often express functions of those targets, and manually specified selectional constraints are often characterized in terms of taxonomic classes. Table 6 confirms this intuition. Taxonomic properties achieve the highest MAP by a large margin, followed by functional properties. Visual properties score the lowest.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 635,
"end": 660,
"text": "8 Lazaridou et al. (2016)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 965,
"end": 966,
"text": "9",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1470,
"end": 1489,
"text": "McRae et al. (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 1548,
"end": 1569,
"text": "Cree and McRae (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 324,
"end": 331,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": "TABREF6"
},
{
"start": 858,
"end": 865,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1086,
"end": 1093,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 1256,
"end": 1263,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": "TABREF6"
},
{
"start": 2186,
"end": 2193,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Count",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We have developed several models for one-shot learning word meanings from single textual contexts. Our models were designed learn word properties using distributional contexts (H1) or about co-occurrences of properties (H2). We find evidence that both kinds of general knowledge are helpful, especially when combined (in the bi-TM), or when used on clean property data (in the Animal dataset). We further saw that some contexts are highly informative, and preliminary expirements in informativity measures found that average pairwise similarity of seen role fillers (Avg-Cos) achieves some success in predicting which contexts are most useful.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "In the future, we hope to test with other types of general knowledge, including a taxonomy of known concepts (Xu and Tenenbaum, 2007) ; wider-coverage property data (Baroni and Lenci, 2010, Type-DM) ; and alternative modalities (Lazaridou et al., 2016 , image features as \"properties\"). We expect our model will scale to these larger problems easily.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 133,
"text": "(Xu and Tenenbaum, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF35"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 198,
"text": "(Baroni and Lenci, 2010, Type-DM)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 251,
"text": "(Lazaridou et al., 2016",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "We would also like to explore better informativity measures and improvements for AvgCos. Knowledge about informative examples can be useful in human-in-the-loop settings, for example a user aiming to illustrate classes in an ontology with a few typical corpus examples. We also note that the bi-TM cannot be used in for truly incremental learning, as the cost of global re-computation after each seen example is prohibitive. We would like to explore probabilistic models that support incremental word learning, which would be interesting to integrate with an overall probabilistic model of semantics (Goodman and Lassiter, 2014).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we interchangeably use the terms unknown word and unknown concept, as we learn properties, and properties belong to concepts rather than words, and we learn them from text, where we observe words rather than concepts.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "https://spacy.io5 Herbelot and Vecchi (2015a) is the only directly relevant previous work on the subject. Further, to the best of our knowledge, for one-shot property learning from text (only), our work has been the first attempt.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This is because MAP gives equal credit for all properties correctly predicted as non-zero. When we evaluate with Generalized Average Precision (GAP)(Kishida, 2005), which takes gold weights into account, the baseline model is roughly 10 points below other models. This indicates our models learn approximate property distributions. We omit GAP scores because they correlate strongly with MAP for non-baseline models.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We also tested a binned variant of the frequency measure, on the intuition that medium-frequency context items should be more informative than either highly frequent or rare ones. However, this measure did not show better performance than the non-binned frequency measure.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This research was supported by the DARPA DEFT program under AFRL grant FA8750-13-2-0026 and by the NSF CAREER grant IIS 0845925. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of DARPA, DoD or the US government. We acknowledge the Texas Advanced Computing Center for providing grid resources that contributed to these results.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Andrews",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Gabriella",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vigliocco",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vinson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "Psychological Review",
"volume": "116",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "463--498",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark Andrews, Gabriella Vigliocco, and David Vin- son. 2009. Integrating experiential and distribu- tional data to learn semantic representations. Psy- chological Review, 116(3):463-498.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Distributional memory: a general framework for corpus-based semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Marco",
"middle": [],
"last": "Baroni",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alexandero",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lenci",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "36",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "673--721",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Marco Baroni and Alexandero Lenci. 2010. Dis- tributional memory: a general framework for corpus-based semantics. Computational Linguis- tics, 36(4):673-721.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Latent Dirichlet Allocation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Blei",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ng",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jordan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Journal of Machine Learning Research",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "4-5",
"pages": "993--1022",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David Blei, Andrew Ng, and Michael Jordan. 2003. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(4-5):993-1022.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Acquiring a single new word",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Susan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carey",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Elsa",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bartlett",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1978,
"venue": "Papers and Reports on Child Language Development",
"volume": "15",
"issue": "",
"pages": "17--29",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Susan Carey and Elsa Bartlett. 1978. Acquiring a sin- gle new word. Papers and Reports on Child Lan- guage Development, 15:17-29.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: A role for associative learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Eliana",
"middle": [],
"last": "Colunga",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Linda",
"middle": [
"B"
],
"last": "Smith",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Psychological Review",
"volume": "112",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "347--382",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eliana Colunga and Linda B. Smith. 2005. From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: A role for asso- ciative learning. Psychological Review, 112(2):347- 382.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns)",
"authors": [
{
"first": "George",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Cree",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ken",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mcrae",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Journal of Experimental Psychology: General",
"volume": "132",
"issue": "",
"pages": "163--201",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "George S. Cree and Ken McRae. 2003. Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132:163- 201.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Measuring distributional similarity in context",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Georgiana",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dinu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mirella",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lapata",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Georgiana Dinu and Mirella Lapata. 2010. Measuring distributional similarity in context. In Proceedings of EMNLP, Cambridge, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "A flexible, corpus-driven model of regular and inverse selectional preferences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Katrin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Erk",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sebastian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pad\u00f3",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ulrike",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pad\u00f3",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Katrin Erk, Sebastian Pad\u00f3, and Ulrike Pad\u00f3. 2010. A flexible, corpus-driven model of regular and inverse selectional preferences. Computational Linguistics, 36(4).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "From distributional semantics to feature norms: Grounding semantic models in human perceptual data",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Luana",
"middle": [],
"last": "F\u0203g\u0203r\u0203\u015fan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eva",
"middle": [
"Maria"
],
"last": "Vecchi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clark",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proceedings of IWCS",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Luana F\u0203g\u0203r\u0203\u015fan, Eva Maria Vecchi, and Stephen Clark. 2015. From distributional semantics to fea- ture norms: Grounding semantic models in human perceptual data. In Proceedings of IWCS, London, Great Britain.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Background to FrameNet",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Fillmore",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Petruck",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "International Journal of Lexicography",
"volume": "16",
"issue": "",
"pages": "235--250",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. J. Fillmore, C. R. Johnson, and M. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16:235-250.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Probabilistic semantics and pragmatics: Uncertainty in language and thought",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Noah",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goodman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lassiter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Handbook of Contemporary Semantics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Noah D. Goodman and Daniel Lassiter. 2014. Prob- abilistic semantics and pragmatics: Uncertainty in language and thought. In Shalom Lappin and Chris Fox, editors, Handbook of Contemporary Semantics. Wiley-Blackwell.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "What is in a text, what isn't and what this has to do with lexical semantics. Proceedings of IWCS",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Aur\u00e9lie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Herbelot",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2013,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aur\u00e9lie Herbelot. 2013. What is in a text, what isn't and what this has to do with lexical semantics. Pro- ceedings of IWCS.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Building a shared world:mapping distributional to modeltheoretic semantic spaces",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Aur\u00e9lie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Herbelot",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eva",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vecchi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proceedings of EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aur\u00e9lie Herbelot and Eva Vecchi. 2015a. Building a shared world:mapping distributional to model- theoretic semantic spaces. In Proceedings of EMNLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Linguistic Issues in Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Aur\u00e9lie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Herbelot",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eva",
"middle": [
"Maria"
],
"last": "Vecchi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Technology",
"volume": "12",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "1--20",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Aur\u00e9lie Herbelot and Eva Maria Vecchi. 2015b. Many speakers, many worlds. Linguistic Issues in Lan- guage Technology, 12(4):1-20.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Perceptual inference through global lexical similarity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brendan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael N Jones",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johns",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "Topics in Cognitive Science",
"volume": "4",
"issue": "",
"pages": "103--120",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brendan T Johns and Michael N Jones. 2012. Percep- tual inference through global lexical similarity. Top- ics in Cognitive Science, 4(1):103-120.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Bernoulli mixture models for binary images",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alfons",
"middle": [],
"last": "Juan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Enrique",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vidal",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of ICPR",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alfons Juan and Enrique Vidal. 2004. Bernoulli mix- ture models for binary images. In Proceedings of ICPR.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Charles",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kemp",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Amy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Perfors",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Joshua",
"middle": [
"B"
],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Developmental Science",
"volume": "10",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "307--321",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Charles Kemp, Amy Perfors, and Joshua B. Tenen- baum. 2007. Learning overhypotheses with hier- archical Bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10(3):307-321.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "VerbNet: A broadcoverage, comprehensive verb lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Karin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kipper",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "-",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schuler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Karin Kipper-Schuler. 2005. VerbNet: A broad- coverage, comprehensive verb lexicon. Ph.D. thesis, Computer and Information Science Dept., Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Property of average precision and its generalization: An examination of evaluation indicator for information retrieval experiments",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kazuaki",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kishida",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "NII Technical Reports",
"volume": "",
"issue": "14",
"pages": "1--19",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kazuaki Kishida. 2005. Property of average precision and its generalization: An examination of evaluation indicator for information retrieval experiments. NII Technical Reports, 2005(14):1-19.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Thomas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Landauer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Susan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dumais",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Psychological Review",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "211--240",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Thomas Landauer and Susan Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis the- ory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, pages 211-240.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Is this a wampimuk? Cross-modal mapping between distributional semantics and the visual world",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Angeliki",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lazaridou",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Elia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bruni",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marco",
"middle": [],
"last": "Baroni",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Angeliki Lazaridou, Elia Bruni, and Marco Baroni. 2014. Is this a wampimuk? Cross-modal map- ping between distributional semantics and the visual world. In Proceedings of ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Multimodal word meaning induction from minimal exposure to natural text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Angeliki",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lazaridou",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marco",
"middle": [],
"last": "Marelli",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marco",
"middle": [],
"last": "Baroni",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2016,
"venue": "Cognitive Science",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--30",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Angeliki Lazaridou, Marco Marelli, and Marco Baroni. 2016. Multimodal word meaning induction from minimal exposure to natural text. Cognitive Science, pages 1-30.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "One-shot learning with Bayesian networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Andrew",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Charles",
"middle": [],
"last": "Maas",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kemp",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Andrew L. Maas and Charles Kemp. 2009. One-shot learning with Bayesian networks. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ken",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mcrae",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "George",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Cree",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Seidenberg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mcnorgan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Behavior Research Methods",
"volume": "37",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "547--559",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ken McRae, George S. Cree, Mark S. Seidenberg, and Chris McNorgan. 2005. Semantic feature produc- tion norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4):547- 559.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Latent variable models of selectional preference",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Diarmuid\u00f3",
"middle": [],
"last": "S\u00e9aghdha",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Diarmuid\u00d3 S\u00e9aghdha. 2010. Latent variable models of selectional preference. In Proceedings of ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Probabilistic distributional semantics with latent variable models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Diarmuid\u00f3",
"middle": [],
"last": "S\u00e9aghdha",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Anna",
"middle": [],
"last": "Korhonen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2014,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "40",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "587--631",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Diarmuid\u00d3 S\u00e9aghdha and Anna Korhonen. 2014. Probabilistic distributional semantics with latent variable models. Computational Linguistics, 40(3):587-631.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "A Latent Dirichlet Allocation method for selectional preferences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ritter",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mausam",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Oren",
"middle": [],
"last": "Etzioni",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alan Ritter, Mausam, and Oren Etzioni. 2010. A La- tent Dirichlet Allocation method for selectional pref- erences. In Proceedings of ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "A multimodal lda model integrating textual, cognitive and visual modalities",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sabine",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schulte Im Walde",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2013,
"venue": "Proceedings of EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stephen Roller and Sabine Schulte im Walde. 2013. A multimodal lda model integrating textual, cognitive and visual modalities. In Proceedings of EMNLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "How well do distributional models capture different types of semantic knowledge?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dana",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rubinstein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Effi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Levi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Roy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schwartz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ari",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rappoport",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2015,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "",
"pages": "726--730",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dana Rubinstein, Effi Levi, Roy Schwartz, and Ari Rappoport. 2015. How well do distributional mod- els capture different types of semantic knowledge? In Proceedings of ACL, volume 2, pages 726-730.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Linda",
"middle": [
"B"
],
"last": "Smith",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Susan",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Jones",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Barbara",
"middle": [],
"last": "Landau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lisa",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gershkoff-Stowe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Larissa",
"middle": [],
"last": "Samuelson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Psychological Science",
"volume": "13",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "13--19",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Linda B. Smith, Susan S. Jones, Barbara Landau, Lisa Gershkoff-Stowe, and Larissa Samuelson. 2002. Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological Science, 13(1):13-19.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Probabilistic topic models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steyvers",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tom",
"middle": [],
"last": "Griffiths",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mark Steyvers and Tom Griffiths. 2007. Probabilistic topic models. In T. Landauer, D.S. McNamara, S. Dennis, and W. Kintsch, eds., Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "The British National Corpus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bnc",
"middle": [],
"last": "The",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Consortium",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "The BNC Consortium. 2007. The British Na- tional Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF33": {
"ref_id": "b33",
"title": "From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Peter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Turney",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Patrick",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pantel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research",
"volume": "37",
"issue": "",
"pages": "141--188",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Peter Turney and Patrick Pantel. 2010. From fre- quency to meaning: Vector space models of se- mantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37:141-188.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF34": {
"ref_id": "b34",
"title": "Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Gabriella",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vigliocco",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vinson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lewis",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Merrill",
"middle": [],
"last": "Garrett",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Cognitive Psychology",
"volume": "48",
"issue": "",
"pages": "422--488",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gabriella Vigliocco, David Vinson, William Lewis, and Merrill Garrett. 2004. Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48:422-488.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF35": {
"ref_id": "b35",
"title": "Word learning as Bayesian inference",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Joshua",
"middle": [
"B"
],
"last": "Tenenbaum",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Psychological Review",
"volume": "114",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "245--272",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fei Xu and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2007. Word learn- ing as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review, 114(2):245-272.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"text": "Plate diagram for the Bimodal Topic Model (bi-TM)",
"uris": null,
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"text": "MAP scores, multi-shot learning on the QMR and Animal datasets",
"content": "<table/>",
"html": null
},
"TABREF2": {
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"text": "",
"content": "<table><tr><td>shows the perfor-</td></tr></table>",
"html": null
},
"TABREF4": {
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"text": "QMR: top 5 properties of gown.",
"content": "<table><tr><td>Top 2</td></tr></table>",
"html": null
},
"TABREF5": {
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"text": "illustrates this point fur-TM BernMix H2 0.23 \u2022 -0.37 \u2022 0.52*",
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>Model</td><td>Freq.</td><td colspan=\"2\">Entropy AvgCos</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Count Mult.</td><td>0.09</td><td>-0.12</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>QMR</td><td colspan=\"2\">Count BernMix H1 0.07 Count BernMix H2 0.10 bi-TM plain 0.15 bi-TM BernMix H2 0.16</td><td>-0.10 -0.09 -0.09 -0.10</td><td>0.17 0.17 0.41 \u2022 0.39 \u2022</td></tr><tr><td>Ani.</td><td>bi-TM plain bi-</td><td>0.25</td><td>-0.40</td><td>0.49*</td></tr></table>",
"html": null
},
"TABREF6": {
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"text": "Correlation of informativity with AP, Spearman's \u03c1. * and \u2022 indicate significance at p < 0.05 and p < 0.1",
"content": "<table/>",
"html": null
}
}
}
} |