BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Alessandro Lenci

Alessandro Lenci appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Computation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence

Catalog footprint

What is connected

6works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A comparative evaluation and analysis of three generations of Distributional Semantic Models

Distributional semantics has deeply changed in the last decades. First, predict models stole the thunder from traditional count ones, and more recently both of them were replaced in many NLP applications by contextualized vectors produced by Transformer neural language models. Although an extensive body of research has been devoted to Distributional Semantic Model (DSM) evaluation, we still lack a thorough comparison with respect to tested models, semantic tasks, and benchmark datasets. Moreover, previous work has mostly focused on task-driven evaluation, instead of exploring the differences between the way models represent the lexical semantic space. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive evaluation of type distributional vectors, either produced by static DSMs or obtained by averaging the contextualized vectors generated by BERT. First of all, we investigate the performance of embeddings in several semantic tasks, carrying out an in-depth statistical analysis to identify the major factors influencing the behavior of DSMs. The results show that i.) the alleged superiority of predict based models is more apparent than real, and surely not ubiquitous and ii.) static DSMs surpass contextualized representations in most out-of-context semantic tasks and datasets. Furthermore, we borrow from cognitive neuroscience the methodology of Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) to inspect the semantic spaces generated by distributional models. RSA reveals important differences related to the frequency and part-of-speech of lexical items.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Nine Features in a Random Forest to Learn Taxonomical Semantic Relations

ROOT9 is a supervised system for the classification of hypernyms, co-hyponyms and random words that is derived from the already introduced ROOT13 (Santus et al., 2016). It relies on a Random Forest algorithm and nine unsupervised corpus-based features. We evaluate it with a 10-fold cross validation on 9,600 pairs, equally distributed among the three classes and involving several Parts-Of-Speech (i.e. adjectives, nouns and verbs). When all the classes are present, ROOT9 achieves an F1 score of 90.7%, against a baseline of 57.2% (vector cosine). When the classification is binary, ROOT9 achieves the following results against the baseline: hypernyms-co-hyponyms 95.7% vs. 69.8%, hypernyms-random 91.8% vs. 64.1% and co-hyponyms-random 97.8% vs. 79.4%. In order to compare the performance with the state-of-the-art, we have also evaluated ROOT9 in subsets of the Weeds et al. (2014) datasets, proving that it is in fact competitive. Finally, we investigated whether the system learns the semantic relation or it simply learns the prototypical hypernyms, as claimed by Levy et al. (2015). The second possibility seems to be the most likely, even though ROOT9 can be trained on negative examples (i.e., switched hypernyms) to drastically reduce this bias.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

ROOT13: Spotting Hypernyms, Co-Hyponyms and Randoms

In this paper, we describe ROOT13, a supervised system for the classification of hypernyms, co-hyponyms and random words. The system relies on a Random Forest algorithm and 13 unsupervised corpus-based features. We evaluate it with a 10-fold cross validation on 9,600 pairs, equally distributed among the three classes and involving several Parts-Of-Speech (i.e. adjectives, nouns and verbs). When all the classes are present, ROOT13 achieves an F1 score of 88.3%, against a baseline of 57.6% (vector cosine). When the classification is binary, ROOT13 achieves the following results: hypernyms-co-hyponyms (93.4% vs. 60.2%), hypernymsrandom (92.3% vs. 65.5%) and co-hyponyms-random (97.3% vs. 81.5%). Our results are competitive with stateof-the-art models.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

The Effects of Data Size and Frequency Range on Distributional Semantic Models

This paper investigates the effects of data size and frequency range on distributional semantic models. We compare the performance of a number of representative models for several test settings over data of varying sizes, and over test items of various frequency. Our results show that neural network-based models underperform when the data is small, and that the most reliable model over data of varying sizes and frequency ranges is the inverted factorized model.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Unsupervised Measure of Word Similarity: How to Outperform Co-occurrence and Vector Cosine in VSMs

In this paper, we claim that vector cosine, which is generally considered among the most efficient unsupervised measures for identifying word similarity in Vector Space Models, can be outperformed by an unsupervised measure that calculates the extent of the intersection among the most mutually dependent contexts of the target words. To prove it, we describe and evaluate APSyn, a variant of the Average Precision that, without any optimization, outperforms the vector cosine and the co-occurrence on the standard ESL test set, with an improvement ranging between +9.00% and +17.98%, depending on the number of chosen top contexts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

What a Nerd! Beating Students and Vector Cosine in the ESL and TOEFL Datasets

In this paper, we claim that Vector Cosine, which is generally considered one of the most efficient unsupervised measures for identifying word similarity in Vector Space Models, can be outperformed by a completely unsupervised measure that evaluates the extent of the intersection among the most associated contexts of two target words, weighting such intersection according to the rank of the shared contexts in the dependency ranked lists. This claim comes from the hypothesis that similar words do not simply occur in similar contexts, but they share a larger portion of their most relevant contexts compared to other related words. To prove it, we describe and evaluate APSyn, a variant of Average Precision that, independently of the adopted parameters, outperforms the Vector Cosine and the co-occurrence on the ESL and TOEFL test sets. In the best setting, APSyn reaches 0.73 accuracy on the ESL dataset and 0.70 accuracy in the TOEFL dataset, beating therefore the non-English US college applicants (whose average, as reported in the literature, is 64.50%) and several state-of-the-art approaches.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access