MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146546639

Learning Bigrams from Unigrams

2008· article· en· W2146546639 on OpenAlex
Xiaojin Zhu, Andrew B. Goldberg, Michael Rabbat, Robert Nowak

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMeeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBigramPerplexityComputer scienceLanguage modelNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceWord (group theory)TrigramOracleSet (abstract data type)Speech recognitionMathematicsProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional wisdom holds that once documents are turned into bag-of-words (unigram count) vectors, word orders are completely lost. We introduce an approach that, perhaps surprisingly, is able to learn a bigram language model from a set of bag-of-words documents. At its heart, our approach is an EM algorithm that seeks a model which maximizes the regularized marginal likelihood of the bagof-words documents. In experiments on seven corpora, we observed that our learned bigram language models: i) achieve better test set perplexity than unigram models trained on the same bag-of-words documents, and are not far behind “oracle bigram models” trained on the corresponding ordered documents; ii) assign higher probabilities to sensible bigram word pairs; iii) improve the accuracy of ordereddocument recovery from a bag-of-words. Our approach opens the door to novel phenomena, for example, privacy leakage from index files.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it