MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401863228 · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671793

<scp>Binder:</scp> Hierarchical Concept Representation through Order Embedding of Binary Vectors

2024· article· en· W4401863228 on OpenAlexaff
Croix Gyurek, Niloy Talukder, Mohammad Al Hasan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbeddingRepresentation (politics)Theoretical computer scienceComputer scienceSimple (philosophy)MathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For natural language understanding and generation, embedding concepts using an order-based representation is an essential task. Unlike traditional point vector based representation, an order-based representation imposes geometric constraints on the representation vectors for explicitly capturing various semantic relationships that may exist between a pair of concepts. In existing literature, several approaches on order-based embedding have been proposed, mostly focusing on capturing hierarchical relationships; examples include vectors in Euclidean space, complex, Hyperbolic, order, and Box Embedding. Box embedding creates region-based rich representation of concepts, but along the process it sacrifices simplicity, requiring a custom-made optimization scheme for learning the representation. Hyperbolic embedding improves embedding quality by exploiting the ever-expanding property of Hyperbolic space, but it also suffers from the same fate as box embedding as gradient descent like optimization is not simple in the Hyperbolic space. In this work, we propose Binder, a novel approach for order-based representation. Binder uses binary vectors for embedding, so the embedding vectors are compact with an order of magnitude smaller footprint than other methods. Binder uses a simple and efficient optimization scheme for learning representation vectors with a linear time complexity. Our comprehensive experimental results show that Binder is very accurate, yielding competitive results on the representation task. But Binder stands out from its competitors on the transitive closure link prediction task as it can learn concept embeddings just from the direct edges, whereas all existing order-based approaches rely on the indirect edges. In particular, Binder achieves a whopping 70% higher F1-score than the second best method (98.6% vs 29%) in our largest dataset, WordNet Nouns (743,241 edges), when using only direct edges during training.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1100.061

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207