Simon De Deyne


2016

pdf bib
Predicting human similarity judgments with distributional models: The value of word associations.
Simon De Deyne | Amy Perfors | Daniel J Navarro
Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers

Most distributional lexico-semantic models derive their representations based on external language resources such as text corpora. In this study, we propose that internal language models, that are more closely aligned to the mental representations of words could provide important insights into cognitive science, including linguistics. Doing so allows us to reflect upon theoretical questions regarding the structure of the mental lexicon, and also puts into perspective a number of assumptions underlying recently proposed distributional text-based models. In particular, we focus on word-embedding models which have been proposed to learn aspects of word meaning in a manner similar to humans. These are contrasted with internal language models derived from a new extensive data set of word associations. Using relatedness and similarity judgments we evaluate these models and find that the word-association-based internal language models consistently outperform current state-of-the art text-based external language models, often with a large margin. These results are not just a performance improvement; they also have implications for our understanding of how distributional knowledge is used by people.

2008

pdf bib
The Construction and Evaluation of Word Space Models
Yves Peirsman | Simon De Deyne | Kris Heylen | Dirk Geeraerts
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'08)

Semantic similarity is a key issue in many computational tasks. This paper goes into the development and evaluation of two common ways of automatically calculating the semantic similarity between two words. On the one hand, such methods may depend on a manually constructed thesaurus like (Euro)WordNet. Their performance is often evaluated on the basis of a very restricted set of human similarity ratings. On the other hand, corpus-based methods rely on the distribution of two words in a corpus to determine their similarity. Their performance is generally quantified through a comparison with the judgements of the first type of approach. This paper introduces a new Gold Standard of more than 5,000 human intra-category similarity judgements. We show that corpus-based methods often outperform (Euro)WordNet on this data set, and that the use of the latter as a Gold Standard for the former, is thus often far from ideal.