EXPLOITING SYNTACTIC, SEMANTIC, AND LEXICAL REGULARITIES IN LANGUAGE MODELING VIA DIRECTED MARKOV RANDOM FIELDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a directed Markov random field (MRF) model that combinesn‐gram models, probabilistic context‐free grammars (PCFGs), and probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA) for the purpose of statistical language modeling. Even though the composite directed MRF model potentially has an exponential number of loops and becomes a context‐sensitive grammar, we are nevertheless able to estimate its parameters in cubic time using an efficient modified Expectation‐Maximization (EM) method,the generalized inside–outside algorithm, which extends the inside–outside algorithm to incorporate the effects of then‐gram and PLSA language models. We generalize various smoothing techniques to alleviate the sparseness ofn‐gram counts in cases where there are hidden variables. We also derive an analogous algorithm to find the most likely parse of a sentence and to calculate the probability of initial subsequence of a sentence, all generated by the composite language model. Our experimental results on theWall Street Journalcorpus show that we obtain significant reductions in perplexity compared to the state‐of‐the‐art baseline trigram model with Good–Turing and Kneser–Ney smoothing techniques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".