MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396531937 · doi:10.22215/etd/2024-15911

Post-processing Techniques for Word Embedding

2024· dissertation· en· W4396531937 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zainab Majeed Albujasim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsWord embeddingComputer scienceWord (group theory)Natural language processingEmbeddingLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceArithmeticMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Word embedding has been a significant breakthrough in natural language processing (NLP). Although word representation has improved remarkably and resulted in better performance in downstream NLP applications, interpretability of word embeddings remains a challenge. Post-processing techniques have been developed to improve the quality of word embeddings by fine-tuning real-valued vectors and eliminating artifacts that arise due to flaws in the training corpus. In this thesis, we propose a simple method to improve the quality of word embeddings and reveal their hidden structure using a post-processing technique. We deploy co-clustering techniques to detect sub-matrices between word meaning and specific dimensions. Furthermore, pre-trained word embeddings based on neural networks often suffer from representation degeneration issues, especially when trained on large datasets. We propose a novel method Orthogonal Auto Encoder with Variational Dropout (OAEVD), which utilizes orthogonal autoencoders and variational dropout techniques to enhance word embedding. The orthogonality constraint encourages more diversity in the latent space, and variational dropout makes the embedding more robust to overfitting. Empirical evaluation on a range of downstream NLP tasks shows that our proposed method effectively improves the quality of pre-trained word embeddings and pre-trained language models. In addition, We introduce a technique to enhance the accuracy of word embeddings by incorporating external knowledge in the form of WordNet pairs to improve the accuracy of word embedding on several NLP 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207