Combining Independent Modules to Solve Multiple-choice Synonym and Analogy Problems

Existing statistical approaches to natural language problems are very coarse approximations to the true complexity of language processing. As such, no single technique will be best for all problem instances. Many researchers are examining ensemble methods that combine the output of successful, separately developed modules to create more accurate solutions. This paper examines three merging rules for combining probability distributions: the well known mixture rule, the logarithmic rule, and a novel product rule. These rules were applied with state-of-the-art results to two problems commonly used to assess human mastery of lexical semantics|synonym questions and analogy questions. All three merging rules result in ensembles that are more accurate than any of their component modules. The dierences among the three rules are not statistically signicant, but it is suggestive that the popular mixture rule is not the best rule for either of the two problems.

[1]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  Learning Analogies and Semantic Relations , 2003, ArXiv.

[2]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[3]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[4]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live by , 1982 .

[5]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  A probabilistic approach to solving crossword puzzles , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Eric Brill,et al.  Classifier Combination for Improved Lexical Disambiguation , 1998, ACL.

[7]  David Yarowsky,et al.  Modeling Consensus: Classifier Combination for Word Sense Disambiguation , 2002, EMNLP.

[8]  Geoffrey E. Hinton Products of experts , 1999 .

[9]  Adam Krzyżak,et al.  Methods of combining multiple classifiers and their applications to handwriting recognition , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[10]  Peter D. Turney Mining the Web for Synonyms: PMI-IR versus LSA on TOEFL , 2001, ECML.

[11]  Tom Heskes,et al.  Selecting Weighting Factors in Logarithmic Opinion Pools , 1997, NIPS.

[12]  Charles L. A. Clarke,et al.  Frequency Estimates for Statistical Word Similarity Measures , 2003, NAACL.

[13]  Robert A. Jacobs,et al.  Methods For Combining Experts' Probability Assessments , 1995, Neural Computation.

[14]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Adaptive Mixtures of Local Experts , 1991, Neural Computation.

[15]  Robert E. Schapire,et al.  A Brief Introduction to Boosting , 1999, IJCAI.

[16]  R. French The computational modeling of analogy-making , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  David J. Chalmers,et al.  High-level perception, representation, and analogy: a critique of artificial intelligence methodology , 1992, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[18]  Michael L. Littman,et al.  Measuring praise and criticism: Inference of semantic orientation from association , 2003, TOIS.

[19]  Stan Szpakowicz,et al.  Roget's thesaurus and semantic similarity , 2012, RANLP.