Comparative Analysis of Word Embeddings in Assessing Semantic Similarity of Complex Sentences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semantic textual similarity is one of the open research challenges in the field of Natural Language Processing. Extensive research has been carried out in this field and near-perfect results are achieved by recent transformer-based models in existing benchmark datasets like the STS dataset and the SICK dataset. In this paper, we study the sentences in these datasets and analyze the sensitivity of various word embeddings with respect to the complexity of the sentences. In this article, we build a complex sentence dataset comprising of 50 sentence pairs with associated semantic similarity values provided by 15 human annotators. Readability analysis is performed to highlight the increase in complexity of the sentences in the existing benchmark datasets and those in the proposed dataset. Further, we perform a comparative analysis of the performance of various word embeddings and language models on the existing benchmark datasets and the proposed dataset. The results show the increase in complexity of the sentences has a significant impact on the performance of the embedding models resulting in a 10-20% decrease in Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it