4.4 Article

Vector-Space Models of Semantic Representation From a Cognitive Perspective: A Discussion of Common Misconceptions

期刊

PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 1006-1033

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1745691619861372

关键词

distributional semantic models; semantic representations; latent semantic analysis; computational models of meaning; semantic memory

资金

  1. German Research Foundation Research Fellowship [392225719]
  2. Fondazione Cariplo-Regione Lombardia [2017-1633]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Models that represent meaning as high-dimensional numerical vectors-such as latent semantic analysis (LSA), hyperspace analogue to language (HAL), bound encoding of the aggregate language environment (BEAGLE), topic models, global vectors (GloVe), and word2vec-have been introduced as extremely powerful machine-learning proxies for human semantic representations and have seen an explosive rise in popularity over the past 2 decades. However, despite their considerable advancements and spread in the cognitive sciences, one can observe problems associated with the adequate presentation and understanding of some of their features. Indeed, when these models are examined from a cognitive perspective, a number of unfounded arguments tend to appear in the psychological literature. In this article, we review the most common of these arguments and discuss (a) what exactly these models represent at the implementational level and their plausibility as a cognitive theory, (b) how they deal with various aspects of meaning such as polysemy or compositionality, and (c) how they relate to the debate on embodied and grounded cognition. We identify common misconceptions that arise as a result of incomplete descriptions, outdated arguments, and unclear distinctions between theory and implementation of the models. We clarify and amend these points to provide a theoretical basis for future research and discussions on vector models of semantic representation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据