Computing Lexical Contrast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowing the degree of semantic contrast between words has widespread application in natural language processing, including machine translation, information retrieval, and dialogue systems. Manually-created lexicons focus on opposites, such as {\rm hot} and {\rm cold}. Opposites are of many kinds such as antipodals, complementaries, and gradable. However, existing lexicons often do not classify opposites into the different kinds. They also do not explicitly list word pairs that are not opposites but yet have some degree of contrast in meaning, such as {\rm warm} and {\rm cold} or {\rm tropical} and {\rm freezing}. We propose an automatic method to identify contrasting word pairs that is based on the hypothesis that if a pair of words, $A$ and $B$, are contrasting, then there is a pair of opposites, $C$ and $D$, such that $A$ and $C$ are strongly related and $B$ and $D$ are strongly related. (For example, there exists the pair of opposites {\rm hot} and {\rm cold} such that {\rm tropical} is related to {\rm hot,} and {\rm freezing} is related to {\rm cold}.) We will call this the contrast hypothesis. We begin with a large crowdsourcing experiment to determine the amount of human agreement on the concept of oppositeness and its different kinds. In the process, we flesh out key features of different kinds of opposites. We then present an automatic and empirical measure of lexical contrast that relies on the contrast hypothesis, corpus statistics, and the structure of a {\it Roget}-like thesaurus. We show that the proposed measure of lexical contrast obtains high precision and large coverage, outperforming existing methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".