REVIEW 3 cited by
Word Representations via Gaussian Embedding
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
Word Representations via Gaussian Embedding
read the original abstract
Current work in lexical distributed representations maps each word to a point vector in low-dimensional space. Mapping instead to a density provides many interesting advantages, including better capturing uncertainty about a representation and its relationships, expressing asymmetries more naturally than dot product or cosine similarity, and enabling more expressive parameterization of decision boundaries. This paper advocates for density-based distributed embeddings and presents a method for learning representations in the space of Gaussian distributions. We compare performance on various word embedding benchmarks, investigate the ability of these embeddings to model entailment and other asymmetric relationships, and explore novel properties of the representation.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
GRE-Diff: Gaussian Room Embeddings for Structured Layout Diffusion
Modeling rooms as isotropic Gaussians and using them to initialize and guide diffusion yields controllable, editable polygonal floor plans that beat prior methods on RPLAN similarity and constraint metrics.
-
Learning Probabilistic Embeddings for Unsupervised Action Segmentation
Probabilistic Gaussian frame embeddings sampled before OT pseudo-labeling raise unsupervised action-segmentation MoF by up to 20.7% and F1 by 19% over deterministic baselines.
-
TaxoBell: Gaussian Box Embeddings for Self-Supervised Taxonomy Expansion
TaxoBell, a Gaussian-box embedding model with symmetric and asymmetric energy losses, ranks parent concepts more accurately than seven taxonomy-expansion baselines on five benchmarks.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.