Difference between revisions of "SAT Analogy Questions (State of the art)"
| Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
[[Category:State of the art]] | [[Category:State of the art]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 06:45, 8 January 2008
- SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test
- 374 multiple-choice analogy questions; 5 choices per question
- SAT questions collected by Michael Littman, available from Peter Turney
- introduced in Turney et al. (2003) as a way of evaluating algorithms for measuring relational similarity
Sample question
Stem: mason:stone Choices: (a) teacher:chalk (b) carpenter:wood (c) soldier:gun (d) photograph:camera (e) book:word Solution: (b) carpenter:wood
Table of results
| Algorithm | Reference for algorithm | Reference for experiment | Type | Correct | 95% confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random | Random guessing | 1 / 5 = 20.0% | Random | 20.0% | 16.1-24.5% |
| JC | Jiang and Conrath (1997) | Turney (2006b) | Hybrid | 27.3% | 23.1-32.4% |
| LIN | Lin (1998) | Turney (2006b) | Hybrid | 27.3% | 23.1-32.4% |
| LC | Leacock and Chodrow (1998) | Turney (2006b) | Lexicon-based | 31.3% | 26.9-36.5% |
| HSO | Hirst and St.-Onge (1998) | Turney (2006b) | Lexicon-based | 32.1% | 27.6-37.4% |
| RES | Resnik (1995) | Turney (2006b) | Hybrid | 33.2% | 28.7-38.5% |
| PMI-IR | Turney (2001) | Turney (2006b) | Corpus-based | 35.0% | 30.2-40.1% |
| LSA+Predication | Mangalath et al. (2004) | Mangalath et al. (2004) | Corpus-based | 42.0% | 37.2-47.4% |
| KNOW-BEST | Veale (2004) | Veale (2004) | Lexicon-based | 43.0% | 38.0-48.2% |
| k-means | Bicici and Yuret (2006) | Bicici and Yuret (2006) | Corpus-based | 44.0% | 39.0-49.3% |
| VSM | Turney and Littman (2005) | Turney and Littman (2005) | Corpus-based | 47.1% | 42.2-52.5% |
| PERT | Turney (2006a) | Turney (2006a) | Corpus-based | 53.5% | 48.5-58.9% |
| LRA | Turney (2006b) | Turney (2006b) | Corpus-based | 56.1% | 51.0–61.2% |
| Human | Average US college applicant | Turney and Littman (2005) | Human | 57.0% | 52.0-62.3% |
Explanation of table
- Algorithm = name of algorithm
- Reference for algorithm = where to find out more about given algorithm
- Reference for experiment = where to find out more about evaluation of given algorithm with SAT questions
- Type = general type of algorithm: corpus-based, lexicon-based, hybrid
- Correct = percent of 374 questions that given algorithm answered correctly
- 95% confidence = confidence interval calculated using Binomial Exact Test
- table rows sorted in order of increasing percent correct
- several WordNet-based similarity measures are implemented in Ted Pedersen's WordNet::Similarity package
- KNOW-BEST = KNOWledge-Based Entertainment and Scholastic Testing
- VSM = Vector Space Model
- LRA = Latent Relational Analysis
- PERT = Pertinence
- PMI-IR = Pointwise Mutual Information - Information Retrieval
- LSA+Predication = Latent Semantic Analysis + Predication
References
Bicici, E., and Yuret, D. (2006). Clustering word pairs to answer analogy questions. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Turkish Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Neural Networks (TAINN 2006).
Hirst, G., and St-Onge, D. (1998). Lexical chains as representation of context for the detection and correction of malapropisms. In C. Fellbaum (ed.), WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge: MIT Press, 305-332.
Jiang, J.J., and Conrath, D.W. (1997). Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. Proceedings of the International Conference on Research in Computational Linguistics, Taiwan.
Leacock, C., and Chodorow, M. (1998). Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification. In C. Fellbaum (ed.), WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 265-283.
Lin, D. (1998). An information-theoretic definition of similarity. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-98), Madison, WI, pp. 296-304.
Mangalath, P., Quesada, J., and Kintsch, W. (2004). Analogy-making as predication using relational information and LSA vectors. In K.D. Forbus, D. Gentner & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Chicago: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Resnik, P. (1995). Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montreal, pp. 448-453.
Turney, P.D., Littman, M.L., Bigham, J., and Shnayder, V. (2003). Combining independent modules to solve multiple-choice synonym and analogy problems. Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP-03), Borovets, Bulgaria, pp. 482-489.
Turney, P.D., and Littman, M.L. (2005). Corpus-based learning of analogies and semantic relations. Machine Learning, 60 (1-3), 251-278.
Turney, P.D. (2001). Mining the Web for synonyms: PMI-IR versus LSA on TOEFL. Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML-2001), Freiburg, Germany, pp. 491-502.
Turney, P.D. (2006a). Expressing implicit semantic relations without supervision. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Coling/ACL-06), Sydney, Australia, pp. 313-320.
Turney, P.D. (2006b). Similarity of semantic relations. Computational Linguistics, 32 (3), 379-416.
Veale, T. (2004). WordNet sits the SAT: A knowledge-based approach to lexical analogy. Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), pp. 606–612, Valencia, Spain.