Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces Latent Relational Analysis (LRA), a method for measuring semantic similarity. LRA measures similarity in the semantic relations between two pairs of words. When two pairs have a high degree of relational similarity, they are analogous. For example, the pair cat:meow is analogous to the pair dog:bark. There is evidence from cognitive science that relational similarity is fundamental to many cognitive and linguistic tasks (e.g., analogical reasoning). In the Vector Space Model (VSM) approach to measuring relational similarity, the similarity between two pairs is calculated by the cosine of the angle between the vectors that represent the two pairs. The elements in the vectors are based on the frequencies of manually constructed patterns in a large corpus. LRA extends the VSM approach in three ways: (1) patterns are derived automatically from the corpus, (2) Singular Value Decomposition is used to smooth the frequency data, and (3) synonyms are used to reformulate word pairs. This paper describes the LRA algorithm and experimentally compares LRA to VSM on two tasks, answering college-level multiple-choice word analogy questions and classifying semantic relations in noun-modifier expressions. LRA achieves state-of-the-art results, reaching human-level performance on the analogy questions and significantly exceeding VSM performance on both tasks.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".