Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

GEAR: A Simple GENERATE, EMBED, AVERAGE AND RANK Approach for Unsupervised Reverse Dictionary

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read GEAR, a simple unsupervised generate-embed-average-rank pipeline, outperforms supervised reverse dictionary systems on the generalization splits of Hill's benchmark.

desk verdict A clean unsupervised RD pipeline with a serious unaddressed contamination problem: the SOTA claim rests on test data the LLM generator has likely memorized. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06654 v1 pith:M4V2ONZQ submitted 2024-12-09 cs.CL

Fatemah Almeman , Luis Espinosa-Anke This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords reversedictionaryunsupervisedmethodlargelanguagemodelstextembeddingsgenerate-embed-average-ranknearestneighborsearchevaluationlexicalaccess
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

GEAR is a four-step, fully unsupervised recipe for reverse dictionary lookup: given a definition, an LLM generates candidate terms, an embedding model turns each candidate into a vector, the vectors are averaged into a centroid, and the centroid is matched against the dictionary's vocabulary by nearest-neighbour search. The paper argues that this zero-training pipeline outperforms heavily tuned supervised baselines, including LLM-based ones, on the two Hill et al. test splits that demand generalization (unseen definitions and human-written descriptions), while overfitting less. The broader point the authors want to establish is that the lexical knowledge needed to retrieve the right word from a definition already lives inside pretrained LLMs and can be harvested without any gradient updates, just by averaging a few generated candidates' embeddings. If right, reverse dictionary systems become dramatically cheaper to build and to port across dictionaries of widely different registers, from WordNet to Urban Dictionary.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the GEAR pipeline itself, which consists of four named steps: Generate, Embed, Average, Rank. Given a definition, an LLM produces a set of candidate terms; each candidate is embedded with a text encoder; the candidate vectors are mean-pooled into a single centroid; and that centroid is used for KNN search over the dictionary's full term vocabulary via cosine similarity. The averaging step is load-bearing: a single generated candidate is suboptimal, and pooling a few candidates (performance plateaus at 2-3) yields a stable centroid that lands closer to the target term's embedding than any individual guess, acting as a cheap ensemble over the LLM's stochasticity. The paper also finds that the embedding model's instruction schema matters (dictionary-specific instructions for Instructor help most), and that max-pooling consistently underperforms averaging.

What would settle it

Build a reverse-dictionary test set from terms coined after GPT-4o mini's knowledge cutoff (or from an invented lexicon with definitions written in Hill's style) and evaluate GEAR on it; if accuracy falls to the level of the supervised baselines, the claimed generalization is likely memorization, while sustained high accuracy would confirm the reasoning-based account.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a fully unsupervised four-step pipeline, GEAR (generate, embed, average, rank), performs reverse dictionary lookup without any training. For each input definition, the LLM (GPT-4o mini, or the open-source Llama 3.1-70B) produces a ranked list of candidate terms; GEAR embeds each candidate with a sentence encoder (best results with Instructor), averages the candidate vectors into a single centroid, and returns the dictionary terms closest to that centroid by cosine similarity. On Hill's benchmark, GEAR sets a new state of the art on the unseen split (accuracy@1 of 70.0% with the example-augmented base prompt) and on the human-description split (accuracy@1 of 92.5%), surpassing supervised systems such as Multi-channel, BERT, and RoBERTa; it trails only on the seen split, where MS-LSTM's near-perfect score reflects memorization of the training data. Across the nine dictionaries in 3D-EX, GEAR consistently improves over LLM-only generation and over untuned embedding baselines, with the largest gains on specialized resources like Hei++ and Sci-definition and the smallest on slang (Urban) and CHA, showing that the method is dictionary-agnostic while register still matters.

Load-bearing premise

The headline results stand on the assumption that GPT-4o mini's correct answers on the 'unseen' and 'description' splits come from reasoning about the definitions rather than from having memorized those exact word-definition pairs during pretraining; the paper reports no contamination test, and if the model has already seen Hill's test definitions, those splits are only 'unseen' for the supervised baselines.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Unsupervised reverse dictionary lookup can replace supervised training: on two of Hill's three test splits, the zero-training GEAR pipeline exceeds tuned supervised systems and overfits less.
  • The pipeline transfers across dictionaries without retraining: GEAR improves over LLM-only generation on all nine 3D-EX sources, with the largest gains on specialized technical resources such as Hei++ and Sci-definition.
  • Embeddings alone are not competitive, but they are essential inside GEAR: untuned embeddings score well below an LLM-only baseline on average, yet in combination with generated candidates they lift MRR from the 28-31 range to the 43-46 range across prompt variants.
  • Prompt engineering contributes little for generation alone but more once embeddings are added: the reasoning prompt adds roughly 7% MRR within GEAR versus about 2% for LLM-only generation.
  • Only a handful of generated candidates are needed: performance plateaus at 2-3 averaged terms, keeping the method's computational overhead small.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the contamination concern is set aside, GEAR's success suggests that the lexical knowledge required for reverse dictionary lookup is almost entirely present in pretrained LLMs and extractable without gradient updates; a testable corollary is that the same generate-embed-average recipe should transfer to other description-to-item retrieval tasks, such as code search from docstrings or product lo
  • The averaging step likely works by reducing the variance of the LLM's individual guesses rather than by adding lexical knowledge from the embeddings; this could be tested by comparing GEAR with an LLM-only reranker that scores the same candidate set.
  • Because GEAR is unsupervised and dictionary-agnostic, it could be applied to fresh or rapidly evolving lexicons (internal company terminology, emerging slang, rare technical registers) without collecting labeled pairs, with the remaining bottleneck being the LLM's candidate quality on niche registers.
  • The finding that untuned embeddings alone are far below the LLM-only baseline but competitive on technical dictionaries suggests that retrieval-based and generation-based RD should be treated as complementary signals rather than rivals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces GEAR, an unsupervised reverse-dictionary (RD) pipeline that (1) prompts an LLM (GPT-4o mini) to generate candidate terms for a definition, (2) embeds those candidates with a text encoder, (3) averages the embeddings, and (4) performs KNN search over the target dictionary's vocabulary. The authors evaluate on Hill et al.'s (2016) three test splits and on a multi-dictionary resource (3D-EX) with several embedding models and three prompt variants. They claim GEAR outperforms supervised baselines and sets a new state of the art on Hill's 'unseen' and 'description' splits, while also analyzing how dictionary register and domain affect performance.

Significance. If the central claim holds, GEAR would be a notably simple and practical unsupervised alternative to supervised RD systems, with the added advantage of not requiring training on a specific dictionary. The paper includes reproducible code and a comparative analysis across diverse dictionary styles, which is valuable for the RD community. However, the headline result rests on the assumption that the LLM generates candidates from understanding the definition rather than from memorizing the test definitions during pretraining; this assumption is untested and is the main risk to the paper's contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1 (Table 2), Section 7 (Table 6), Limitations] The 'unseen' and 'description' splits of Hill et al. are drawn from WordNet, Webster's, and Wiktionary, which are very likely present in the pretraining data of GPT-4o mini and Llama 3.1-70B. As a result, the model may surface the gold word from memory, and the 'unseen' condition is not unseen for the LLM. The lack of any contamination control (e.g., paraphrased definitions, membership inference, or post-cutoff vocabulary tests) means the reported 'new state of the art' is not established. Please add such controls or explicitly re-frame the results as measuring both memory and generalization.
  2. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract and Section 1 state that GEAR outperforms 'supervised baselines (including those leveraging LLMs)', but Table 2 only includes BiLSTM/transformer-encoder baselines from Zhang et al. (2020) and Yan et al. (2020); the only LLM-based supervised method discussed (Tian et al., 2024) is not compared. The claim therefore overstates the evidence. Please either include an LLM-based supervised baseline or temper the wording.
  3. [Section 6.1 and Figure 2] The number of generated candidates k and the decoding settings (temperature, sampling strategy) are not reported for the main experiments, even though Figure 2 shows that k affects performance. This omission makes the results difficult to reproduce exactly; the authors should state the default k and generation hyperparameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 7] In the seen split, rp row, the value '4.6' for ACC@100 appears to be a typo for '94.6'.
  2. [Table 5] The instructor instruction variants (e.g., 'dict. - dict.') are not defined in the caption; please clarify what each pair refers to.
  3. [Section 5.2] There is a typo 'SoTa' and inconsistent capitalization of '3D-Ex' vs. '3D-EX' throughout the paper.
  4. [Limitations] The Limitations section acknowledges the absence of baseline comparisons on 3D-EX but does not mention the potential pretraining contamination of the LLM, which is a more consequential threat to the paper's main claim.
  5. [General evaluation] The paper does not report standard deviations or confidence intervals for the LLM-based results; since LLM generation is stochastic unless greedy decoding is used, a small number of repeated runs would strengthen the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; GEAR's unsupervised numbers are direct retrieval outputs, with the main unexamined risk being LLM contamination and test-set component choice, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

GEAR is unsupervised: it generates candidate terms from a definition via GPT-4o mini, embeds and averages them, and then performs KNN search over the dictionary vocabulary. No parameter is fitted to Hill's gold labels, and no equation in the paper defines the output as a function of the gold term by construction. Reported MRR, accuracy@k, and median rank on Hill's seen/unseen/description splits are direct retrieval metrics; the comparison is against externally published supervised baselines on an external benchmark. The only self-citations are to 3D-EX (Almeman et al., 2023), used as a secondary testbed rather than as the basis for the central SOTA claim, and to an earlier WordNet example-quality analysis (Almeman and Espinosa-Anke, 2022), used only for an interpretative remark. The paper's stated limitation that 3D-EX results lack baseline RD comparisons is a completeness issue, not circularity. The possibility that GPT-4o mini memorized Hill's test definitions during pretraining is a data-contamination risk, which is a correctness concern rather than a circularity of the derivation chain. The choice of Instructor as the embedding model is justified in Table 2's caption 'as it achieves the best performance' on the same reported splits; this is test-set model selection and should be noted as an evaluation risk, but it does not make the prediction equivalent to the input by construction. Overall, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

GEAR is an empirical pipeline, not a derivation. It depends on standard assumptions about embedding similarity, LLM relevance, and benchmark integrity. The main tuned choices are hyperparameters and configuration selection, all decided by test-set inspection rather than a fitted mathematical model. There are no invented entities.

free parameters (4)
  • number of generated candidates k = 1 to 5, best around 2 to 3 (Figures 2a-c)
    The generate step produces a ranked list of k terms; the paper shows performance varies with k and plateaus with a few candidates, indicating k is a tuned hyperparameter.
  • pooling method = mean pooling
    Mean pooling of candidate embeddings outperforms max pooling by 1-4% across Hill splits (Section 7, Table 7).
  • embedding model and instruction variant = Instructor with dictionary-definition instructions
    Among 20+ configurations in Table 5, Instructor with dictionary-specific instructions gives the best 3D-EX averages; this choice is selected after inspecting test results, without a separate validation set.
  • prompt template = bp2 or rp depending on metric and dataset
    Three prompt variants are compared; bp2 is best on Hill's seen and unseen splits for Instructor, while rp wins on 3D-EX average MRR. The choice is empirical and not theory-driven.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity KNN over dictionary term embeddings is a valid retrieval criterion for definitions.
    The rank step assumes that the averaged candidate embedding is closer to correct terms than to incorrect ones in cosine space; this is the underlying model of semantic similarity.
  • domain assumption Mean pooling of several LLM-generated candidate embeddings produces a better query vector than any single candidate.
    Section 7's candidate-count analysis (Figure 2) shows one candidate is suboptimal, but the mechanism is empirical, not derived.
  • domain assumption GPT-4o mini generates candidate terms that are relevant to the input definition.
    The whole generate step relies on the LLM's lexical knowledge; no guarantee is provided that generated terms are in the dictionary vocabulary.
  • domain assumption The Hill et al. test splits and gold word-definition pairs are not contained in the LLM's pretraining data.
    The paper compares against supervised models trained only on Hill's train split, but GPT-4o mini is pretrained on web-scale data; the paper does not test for contamination.
  • domain assumption Dictionary resources in 3D-EX provide correct and representative gold terms for evaluation.
    Evaluation treats each source's term list as ground truth, including crowd-sourced and slang dictionaries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GEAR: A Simple GENERATE, EMBED, AVERAGE AND RANK Approach for Unsupervised Reverse Dictionary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4V2ONZQ

@misc{pith2026241206654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GEAR: A Simple GENERATE, EMBED, AVERAGE AND RANK Approach for Unsupervised Reverse Dictionary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4V2ONZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06654}
}
read the original abstract

Reverse Dictionary (RD) is the task of obtaining the most relevant word or set of words given a textual description or dictionary definition. Effective RD methods have applications in accessibility, translation or writing support systems. Moreover, in NLP research we find RD to be used to benchmark text encoders at various granularities, as it often requires word, definition and sentence embeddings. In this paper, we propose a simple approach to RD that leverages LLMs in combination with embedding models. Despite its simplicity, this approach outperforms supervised baselines in well studied RD datasets, while also showing less over-fitting. We also conduct a number of experiments on different dictionaries and analyze how different styles, registers and target audiences impact the quality of RD systems. We conclude that, on average, untuned embeddings alone fare way below an LLM-only baseline (although they are competitive in highly technical dictionaries), but are crucial for boosting performance in combined methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06654 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance comparison for various embedding models across different metrics in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A comparison of the performance on Hill’s splits, evaluating the number of candidates in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Eneko Agirre and Philip Edmonds. 2007. Word sense disambiguation: Algorithms and applications, volume 33. Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Fatemah Almeman and Luis Espinosa Anke. 2022. Putting wordnet’s dictionary examples in the context of definition modelling: An empirical analysis. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon, pages 42--48

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Fatemah Almeman and Luis Espinosa-Anke. 2022. Putting wordnet’s dictionary examples in the context of definition modelling: An empirical analysis. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of the Lexicon, pages 42--48

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Fatemah Almeman, Hadi Sheikhi, and Luis Espinosa Anke. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.ranlp-1.8 3 D - EX : A unified dataset of definitions and dictionary examples

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Tal August, Katharina Reinecke, and Noah A. Smith. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.569 Generating scientific definitions with controllable complexity . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8298--8317, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.569 2022

  7. [7]

    Lenka Baj c eti \'c and Thierry Declerck. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.lrec-1.370 Using W iktionary to create specialized lexical resources and datasets . In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 3457--3460, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    D Frank Benson. 1979. Neurologic correlates of anomia. In Studies in neurolinguistics, pages 293--328. Elsevier

    work page 1979

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Michele Bevilacqua, Marco Maru, and Roberto Navigli. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.585 Generationary or `` how we went beyond word sense inventories and learned to gloss '' . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Slaven Bila, Wataru Watanabe, Taiichi Hashimoto, Takenobu Tokunaga, and Hozumi Tanaka. 2004. Dictionary search based on the target word description

    2004

  3. [11]

    tip of the tongue

    Roger Brown and David McNeill. 1966. The “tip of the tongue” phenomenon. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 5(4):325--337

    1966

  4. [12]

    Ting-Yun Chang and Yun-Nung Chen. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1627 What does this word mean? explaining contextualized embeddings with natural language definition . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th ...

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Guowei Chen and Jianbo Su. 2021. Towards non-ambiguous reverse dictionary. In 2021 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), pages 1113--1120. IEEE

    2021

  6. [14]

    Pinzhen Chen and Zheng Zhao. 2022. A unified model for reverse dictionary and definition modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.04602

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Qianglong Chen, Feng-Lin Li, Guohai Xu, Ming Yan, Ji Zhang, and Yin Zhang. 2022. Dictbert: Dictionary description knowledge enhanced language model pre-training via contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.00635

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Christiane Fellbaum. 2013. Wordnet. In Carol Chapelle, editor, The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, pages 6739--6746. Blackwell Publishing Ltd

    2013

  10. [18]

    Amit Gajbhiye, Zied Bouraoui, Luis Espinosa Anke, and Steven Schockaert. 2024. Amended: Modelling concepts by aligning mentions, definitions and decontextualised embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resour...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Mario Giulianelli, Iris Luden, Raquel Fernandez, and Andrey Kutuzov. 2023. Interpretable word sense representations via definition generation: The case of semantic change analysis. In The 61st Annual Meeting Of The Association For Computational Linguistics

    2023

  12. [20]

    Michael Günther, Louis Milliken, Jonathan Geuter, Georgios Mastrapas, Bo Wang, and Han Xiao. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11224 Jina embeddings: A novel set of high-performance sentence embedding models . Preprint, arXiv:2307.11224

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Matthias Hartung. 2015. Distributional Semantic Models of Attribute Meaning in Adjectives and Nouns. Ph.D. thesis

    2015

  14. [22]

    Felix Hill, Kyunghyun Cho, Anna Korhonen, and Yoshua Bengio. 2016. Learning to understand phrases by embedding the dictionary. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:17--30

    2016

  15. [23]

    Luyao Huang, Chi Sun, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuan-Jing Huang. 2019. Glossbert: Bert for word sense disambiguation with gloss knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Lang...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Dimitri Kartsaklis, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, and Nigel Collier. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1221 Mapping text to knowledge graph entities using multi-sense LSTM s . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1959-...

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.703 Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation...

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Xianming Li and Jing Li. 2023. Angle-optimized text embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12871

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Zehan Li, Xin Zhang, Yanzhao Zhang, Dingkun Long, Pengjun Xie, and Meishan Zhang. 2023. Towards general text embeddings with multi-stage contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03281

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Sunil B Mane, Harshal Navneet Patil, Kanhaiya Balaji Madaswar, and Pranav Nitin Sadavarte. 2022. Wordalchemy: a transformer-based reverse dictionary. In 2022 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Technologies (CONIT), pages 1--5. IEEE

    2022

  21. [29]

    Timothee Mickus, Kees Van Deemter, Mathieu Constant, and Denis Paperno. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.semeval-1.1 S emeval-2022 task 1: CODWOE -- comparing dictionaries and word embeddings . In Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (Sem...

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    George A Miller. 1995. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39--41

    1995

  23. [31]

    Yuya Morinaga and Kazunori Yamaguchi. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99972-2_44 Improvement of Reverse Dictionary by Tuning Word Vectors and Category Inference: 24th International Conference, ICIST 2018, Vilnius, Lithuania, October 4–6, 2018, Proceedings , pages 533--545

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Viktor Moskvoretskii, Ekaterina Neminova, Alina Lobanova, Alexander Panchenko, and Irina Nikishina. 2024. Taxollama: Wordnet-based model for solving multiple lexical sematic tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09207

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Niklas Muennighoff, Nouamane Tazi, Loic Magne, and Nils Reimers. 2023. Mteb: Massive text embedding benchmark. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2014--2037

    2023

  26. [34]

    Mohammad Taher Pilehvar. 2019. On the importance of distinguishing word meaning representations: A case study on reverse dictionary mapping. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tec...

    2019

  27. [35]

    Mohammad Taher Pilehvar and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1128 W i C : the word-in-context dataset for evaluating context-sensitive meaning representations . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association ...

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research, 21(140):1--67

    2020

  29. [37]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ryan Shaw, Anindya Datta, Debra VanderMeer, and Kaushik Dutta. 2011. Building a scalable database-driven reverse dictionary. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 25(3):528--540

    2011

  31. [39]

    Hongjin Su, Jungo Kasai, Yizhong Wang, Yushi Hu, Mari Ostendorf, Wen-tau Yih, Noah A Smith, Luke Zettlemoyer, Tao Yu, et al. 2022. One embedder, any task: Instruction-finetuned text embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09741

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Sicheng Tian, Shaobin Huang, Rongsheng Li, and Chi Wei. 2024. A prompt construction method for the reverse dictionary task of large-scale language models. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 133:108596

    2024

  33. [41]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Various. 2009. Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Project Gutenberg

    2009

  35. [43]

    Yixiao Wang, Zied Bouraoui, Luis Espinosa Anke, and Steven Schockaert. 2021. Deriving word vectors from contextualized language models using topic-aware mention selection. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Representation Learning for NLP (RepL4NLP-2021), pages 185--194

    2021

  36. [44]

    Leo Wanner. 1996. Lexical choice in text generation and machine translation. Machine Translation, 11(1):3--35

    1996

  37. [45]

    Noah Webster. 1900. Webster's unabridged dictionary of the English language. Kikwansha

    1900

  38. [46]

    Wilson, Walid Magdy, Barbara McGillivray, Venkata Rama Kiran Garimella, and Gareth Tyson

    Steven R. Wilson, Walid Magdy, Barbara McGillivray, Venkata Rama Kiran Garimella, and Gareth Tyson. 2020. Urban dictionary embeddings for slang nlp applications. In International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation

    2020

  39. [47]

    Ningyu Xu, Qi Zhang, Menghan Zhang, Peng Qian, and Xuanjing Huang. 2024. On the tip of the tongue: Analyzing conceptual representation in large language models with reverse-dictionary probe. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14404

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Hang Yan, Xiaonan Li, Xipeng Qiu, and Bocao Deng. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.388 BERT for monolingual and cross-lingual reverse dictionary . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4329--4338, Online. Associati...

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    Tae Yano and Moonyoung Kang. 2016. Taking advantage of wikipedia in natural language processing

    2016

  42. [50]

    Wenhao Yu, Chenguang Zhu, Yuwei Fang, Donghan Yu, Shuohang Wang, Yichong Xu, Michael Zeng, and Meng Jiang. 2022. Dict-bert: Enhancing language model pre-training with dictionary. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1907--1918

    2022

  43. [51]

    Guobiao Zhang, Wenpeng Lu, Xueping Peng, Shoujin Wang, Baoshuo Kan, and Rui Yu. 2022. Word sense disambiguation with knowledge-enhanced and local self-attention-based extractive sense comprehension. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguisti...

    2022

  44. [52]

    Lei Zhang, Fanchao Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, Yasheng Wang, Qun Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.08441 Multi-channel reverse dictionary model . Preprint, arXiv:1912.08441

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Lei Zhang, Fanchao Qi, Zhiyuan Liu, Yasheng Wang, Qun Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Multi-channel reverse dictionary model. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 312--319

    2020

  46. [54]

    Michael Zock. 2004. Word lookup as an ongoing dialogue between a user and a lexicon. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Association for Natural Language Processing, pages 484--487

    2004

  47. [55]

    Michael Zock and Slaven Bilac. 2004. Word lookup on the basis of associations: from an idea to a roadmap. In Proceedings of the workshop on enhancing and using electronic dictionaries, pages 29--35

    2004

  48. [56]

    Michael Zock, Olivier Ferret, and Didier Schwab. 2010. Deliberate word access: an intuition, a roadmap and some preliminary empirical results. International Journal of Speech Technology, 13(4):201--218

    2010

  49. [57]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  50. [58]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.