LexSubCon: Integrating Knowledge from Lexical Resources into Contextual Embeddings for Lexical Substitution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lexical substitution is the task of generating meaningful substitutes for a word in a given textual context.Contextual word embedding models have achieved state-of-the-art results in the lexical substitution task by relying on contextual information extracted from the replaced word within the sentence.However, such models do not take into account structured knowledge that exists in external lexical databases.We introduce LexSubCon, an end-to-end lexical substitution framework based on contextual embedding models that can identify highly-accurate substitute candidates.This is achieved by combining contextual information with knowledge from structured lexical resources.Our approach involves: (i) introducing a novel mix-up embedding strategy to the target word's embedding through linearly interpolating the pair of the target input embedding and the average embedding of its probable synonyms; (ii) considering the similarity of the sentence-definition embeddings of the target word and its proposed candidates; and, (iii) calculating the effect of each substitution on the semantics of the sentence through a fine-tuned sentence similarity model.Our experiments show that LexSubCon outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods by at least 2% over all the official lexical substitution metrics on LS07 and CoInCo benchmark datasets that are widely used for lexical substitution 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
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".