Experiments with Three Approaches to Recognizing Lexical Entailment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inference in natural language often involves recognizing lexical entailment (RLE); that is, identifying whether one word entails another. For example, "buy" entails "own". Two general strategies for RLE have been proposed: One strategy is to manually construct an asymmetric similarity measure for context vectors (directional similarity) and another is to treat RLE as a problem of learning to recognize semantic relations using supervised machine learning techniques (relation classification). In this paper, we experiment with two recent state-of-the-art representatives of the two general strategies. The first approach is an asymmetric similarity measure (an instance of the directional similarity strategy), designed to capture the degree to which the contexts of a word, a, form a subset of the contexts of another word, b. The second approach (an instance of the relation classification strategy) represents a word pair, a:b, with a feature vector that is the concatenation of the context vectors of a and b, and then applies supervised learning to a training set of labeled feature vectors. Additionally, we introduce a third approach that is a new instance of the relation classification strategy. The third approach represents a word pair, a:b, with a feature vector in which the features are the differences in the similarities of a and b to a set of reference words. All three approaches use vector space models (VSMs) of semantics, based on word-context matrices. We perform an extensive evaluation of the three approaches using three different datasets. The proposed new approach (similarity differences) performs significantly better than the other two approaches on some datasets and there is no dataset for which it is significantly worse. Our results suggest it is beneficial to make connections between the research in lexical entailment and the research in semantic relation classification.
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 | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".