Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Retrofitting Word Vectors to Semantic Lexicons

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1411.4166 v4 pith:EIBD5DNV submitted 2014-11-15 cs.CL

Retrofitting Word Vectors to Semantic Lexicons

classification cs.CL
keywords semanticvectorlexiconswordinformationrepresentationsmethodspace
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Vector space word representations are learned from distributional information of words in large corpora. Although such statistics are semantically informative, they disregard the valuable information that is contained in semantic lexicons such as WordNet, FrameNet, and the Paraphrase Database. This paper proposes a method for refining vector space representations using relational information from semantic lexicons by encouraging linked words to have similar vector representations, and it makes no assumptions about how the input vectors were constructed. Evaluated on a battery of standard lexical semantic evaluation tasks in several languages, we obtain substantial improvements starting with a variety of word vector models. Our refinement method outperforms prior techniques for incorporating semantic lexicons into the word vector training algorithms.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Explainability of Large Language Models: Opportunities and Challenges toward Generating Trustworthy Explanations

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0

    LLM explanations split into local and mechanistic tracks; the paper argues they are trustworthy only if they pass causal and contrastive stress tests, adapt to the explainee, and satisfy eight trust principles.