MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281626616 · doi:10.3390/info13060290

Contextualizer: Connecting the Dots of Context with Second-Order Attention

2022· article· en· W4281626616 on OpenAlexafffund
Diego Maupomé, Marie‐Jean Meurs

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsSecurity tokenComputer scienceSentenceRepresentation (politics)Theoretical computer scienceEmbeddingComputationTransformerAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Composing the representation of a sentence from the tokens that it comprises is difficult, because such a representation needs to account for how the words present relate to each other. The Transformer architecture does this by iteratively changing token representations with respect to one another. This has the drawback of requiring computation that grows quadratically with respect to the number of tokens. Furthermore, the scalar attention mechanism used by Transformers requires multiple sets of parameters to operate over different features. The present paper proposes a lighter algorithm for sentence representation with complexity linear in sequence length. This algorithm begins with a presumably erroneous value of a context vector and adjusts this value with respect to the tokens at hand. In order to achieve this, representations of words are built combining their symbolic embedding with a positional encoding into single vectors. The algorithm then iteratively weighs and aggregates these vectors using a second-order attention mechanism, which allows different feature pairs to interact with each other separately. Our models report strong results in several well-known text classification 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformationSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207