Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2018
DOI: 10.18653/v1/d18-1527
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conditional Word Embedding and Hypothesis Testing via Bayes-by-Backprop

Abstract: Conventional word embedding models do not leverage information from document metadata, and they do not model uncertainty. We address these concerns with a model that incorporates document covariates to estimate conditional word embedding distributions. Our model allows for (a) hypothesis tests about the meanings of terms, (b) assessments as to whether a word is near or far from another conditioned on different covariate values, and (c) assessments as to whether estimated differences are statistically significa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(13 reference statements)
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(There are other ways of approaching the problem of statistical significance for model outputs (see Han et al. 2018) but bootstrapping provides programmatic simplicity and reproducibility with small data sets.) Second, results shift with variations in the user-specified hyperparameters of the selected algorithm, like the dimensionality of the vectors, smoothing, context windows, and sample sizes, suggesting that analysts should select and tune their algorithms by testing for successful task performance (Levy, Goldberg, and Dagan 2015).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(There are other ways of approaching the problem of statistical significance for model outputs (see Han et al. 2018) but bootstrapping provides programmatic simplicity and reproducibility with small data sets.) Second, results shift with variations in the user-specified hyperparameters of the selected algorithm, like the dimensionality of the vectors, smoothing, context windows, and sample sizes, suggesting that analysts should select and tune their algorithms by testing for successful task performance (Levy, Goldberg, and Dagan 2015).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Future methodological work will follow three tracks. The first will build on Rudolph et al (2016) and Han et al (2018), one goal is incorporating document-level metadata into embedding estimation, allowing embeddings to vary according to document-specific attributes, and then, identifying the resulting embeddings. The second will take advantage of stochastic variational inference (Hoffman et al, 2013) to enable Bayesian Word Embeddings to scale to massive corpora.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There have been multiple efforts at developing Bayesian word embeddings (Rudolph et al, 2016;Barkan, 2017;Ji et al, 2017;Havrylov and Titov, 2018), however, none of these have exploited the key advantage of Bayesian inference: the ability to quantify the uncertainty in parameter estimates, and use prior information to inform parameter estimates. The one approach that has incorporated both uncertainty and hypothesis testing is Han et al (2018), who offer both measures of uncertainty, and a way to test the effect of metadata on the similarity of embeddings, however, this approach does not account for identification problems in the learned embeddings.…”
Section: Social Science and Embedding Models Of Languagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2013a), and Han et al. (2018). For accessible, applied introductions, see Ruizendaal (2017) and TensorFlow (2018).…”
mentioning
confidence: 96%
“…2015; Han et al. 2018), it has yet to make use of models that account for more complex time dependencies among words.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%