DAG-Structured Long Short-Term Memory for Semantic Compositionality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recurrent neural networks, particularly long short-term memory (LSTM), have recently shown to be very effective in a wide range of sequence modeling problems, core to which is effective learning of distributed representation for subsequences as well as the sequences they form. An assumption in almost all the previous models, however, posits that the learned representation (e.g., a distributed representation for a sentence), is fully compositional from the atomic components (e.g., representations for words), while non-compositionality is a basic phenomenon in human languages. In this paper, we relieve the assumption by extending the chain-structured LSTM to directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), with the aim to endow linear-chain LSTMs with the capability of considering compositionality together with non-compositionality in the same semantic composition framework. From a more general viewpoint, the proposed models incorporate additional prior knowledge into recurrent neural networks, which is interesting to us, considering most NLP tasks have relatively small training data and appropriate prior knowledge could be beneficial to help cover missing semantics. Our experiments on sentiment composition demonstrate that the proposed models achieve the state-of-the-art performance, outperforming models that lack this ability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".