MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907786475 · doi:10.1109/icosc.2019.8665673

Improving Tree-LSTM with Tree Attention

2019· preprint· en· W2907786475 on OpenAlexaff
Mahtab Ahmed, Muhammad Rifayat Samee, Robert E. Mercer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTree (set theory)Computer scienceTree structureArtificial intelligenceDependency (UML)Encoding (memory)Task (project management)SentenceDecision tree modelNatural language processingMachine learningTheoretical computer scienceDecision treeAlgorithmMathematicsBinary tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Natural Language Processing (NLP), we often need to extract information from tree topology. Sentence structure can be represented via a dependency tree or a constituency tree structure. For this reason, a variant of LSTMs, named Tree-LSTM, was proposed to work on tree topology. In this paper, we design a generalized attention framework for both dependency and constituency trees by encoding variants of decomposable attention inside a Tree-LSTM cell. We evaluated our models on a semantic relatedness task and achieved notable results compared to Tree-Lstmbased methods with no attention as well as other neural and non-neural methods and good results compared to Tree-Lstmbased methods with attention.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207