REVIEW 2 cited by
SensePOLAR: Word sense aware interpretability for pre-trained contextual word embeddings
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Adding interpretability to word embeddings represents an area of active research in text representation. Recent work has explored thepotential of embedding words via so-called polar dimensions (e.g. good vs. bad, correct vs. wrong). Examples of such recent approaches include SemAxis, POLAR, FrameAxis, and BiImp. Although these approaches provide interpretable dimensions for words, they have not been designed to deal with polysemy, i.e. they can not easily distinguish between different senses of words. To address this limitation, we present SensePOLAR, an extension of the original POLAR framework that enables word-sense aware interpretability for pre-trained contextual word embeddings. The resulting interpretable word embeddings achieve a level of performance that is comparable to original contextual word embeddings across a variety of natural language processing tasks including the GLUE and SQuAD benchmarks. Our work removes a fundamental limitation of existing approaches by offering users sense aware interpretations for contextual word embeddings.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Interpretable Syntactic Representations Enable Hierarchical Word Vectors
A linear projection of Word2Vec and GloVe embeddings onto eight part-of-speech axes yields compact interpretable vectors, and combining them with the original vectors gives small gains on a few downstream tasks.
-
Why you shouldn't fully trust ChatGPT: A synthesis of this AI tool's error rates across disciplines and the software engineering lifecycle
A multivocal literature review finds ChatGPT's reported error rates range from single digits to over 80 percent depending on domain and task, yet its synthesized ranges are not backed by a released dataset.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.