GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation

Pennington et al., 2014, GloVe (Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP))

Subscriber deck — free during early access

2 cards in “2 Related Work” · whole deck

2 Related Work

  1. What problem with raw term–term co-occurrence counts (e.g. HAL) did later methods address?
    The most frequent words dominate similarity: co-occurring with the or and affects similarity a lot while saying little about meaning. Fixes compress the counts, which span 8–9 orders of magnitude: entropy or correlation normalization (COALS), positive PMI, square roots (Hellinger PCA).
    • Pennington et al., 2014, GloVe (Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)), §2, p. 1533
  2. What disadvantage of window-based methods like skip-gram does GloVe target?
    They don’t operate directly on co-occurrence statistics; scanning context windows across the whole corpus fails to take advantage of the vast repetition in the data.
    • Pennington et al., 2014, GloVe (Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)), §2, p. 1533

Source

  • Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 1532–1543. doi:10.3115/v1/D14-1162 https://aclanthology.org/D14-1162/