Pooling Word Vector Representations Across Models

  • Rajendra BanjadeEmail author
  • Nabin Maharjan
  • Dipesh Gautam
  • Frank Adrasik
  • Arthur C. Graesser
  • Vasile Rus
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10761)


Vector based word representation models are typically developed from very large corpora with the hope that the representations are reliable and have wide coverage, i.e. they cover, ideally, all words. However, we often encounter words in real world applications that are not available in a single vector-based model. In this paper, we present a novel Neural Network (NN) based approach for obtaining representations for words that are missing in a target model from another model, called the source model, where representations for these words are available, effectively pooling together their vocabularies and the corresponding representations. Our experiments with three different types of pre-trained models (Word2vec, GloVe, and LSA) show that the representations obtained using our transformation approach can substantially and effectively extend the word coverage of existing models. The increase in the number of unique words covered by a model varies from few to several times depending on which model vocabulary is taken as reference. The transformed word representations are also well correlated (average correlation up to 0.801 for words in Simlex-999 dataset) with the native target model representations indicating that the transformed vectors can effectively be used as substitutes of native word representations. Furthermore, an extrinsic evaluation based on a word-to-word similarity task using the Simlex-999 dataset leads to results close to those obtained using native target model representations.


Semantics Word representations Handling missing words 



The research was supported by the Office of Naval Research (N00014-00-1-0600, N00014-15-P-1184; N00014-12-C-0643; N00014-16-C-3027) and the National Science Foundation Data Infrastructure Building Blocks program (ACI-1443068). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are solely the authors’.


  1. 1.
    Alexandrescu, A., Kirchhoff, K.: Factored neural language models. In: Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL, Companion Volume: Short Papers, pp. 1–4. Association for Computational Linguistics (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banjade, R., Maharjan, N., Gautam, D., Rus, V.: Handling missing words by mapping across word vector representations. In: FLAIRS Conference, pp. 250–253 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banjade, R., et al.: Nerosim: A system for measuring and interpreting semantic textual similarity. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on SemEval (Co-located with NAACL), pp. 164–171 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baroni, M., Zamparelli, R.: Nouns are vectors, adjectives are matrices: representing adjective-noun constructions in semantic space. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1183–1193. Association for Computational Linguistics (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batchkarov, M., Kober, T., Reffin, J., Weeds, J., Weir, D.: A critique of word similarity as a method for evaluating distributional semantic models (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bengio, Y., Ducharme, R., Vincent, P., Janvin, C.: A neural probabilistic language model. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 1137–1155 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collobert, R., Weston, J., Bottou, L., Karlen, M., Kavukcuoglu, K., Kuksa, P.: Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2493–2537 (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finkelstein, L., et al.: Placing search in context: the concept revisited. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 406–414. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hill, F., Reichart, R., Korhonen, A.: Simlex-999: evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.3456 (2014)
  10. 10.
    Iacobacci, I., Pilehvar, M.T., Navigli, R.: Sensembed: learning sense embeddings for word and relational similarity. In: Proceedings of ACL, pp. 95–105 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landauer, T.K., Foltz, P.W., Laham, D.: An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Process. 25(2–3), 259–284 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lei, T., Xin, Y., Zhang, Y., Barzilay, R., Jaakkola, T.: Low-rank tensors for scoring dependency structures. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 1381–1391 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luong, M.T., Socher, R., Manning, C.D.: Better word representations with recursive neural networks for morphology. In: CoNLL-2013, p. 104 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P., Schütze, H.: Introduction to Information Retrieval, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., Dean, J.: Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 (2013)
  16. 16.
    Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G.S., Dean, J.: Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 3111–3119 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller, G.A.: Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Commun. ACM 38(11), 39–41 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miller, W.R.: Motivational interviewing with problem drinkers. Behav. Psychother. 11, 147–172 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Møller, M.F.: A scaled conjugate gradient algorithm for fast supervised learning. Neural Netw. 6(4), 525–533 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nayak, N., Angeli, G., Manning, C.D.: Evaluating word embeddings using a representative suite of practical tasks. ACL 2016, 19 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pennington, J., Socher, R., Manning, C.D.: Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In: Proceedings of the Empiricial Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2014) vol. 12, pp. 1532–1543 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rus, V., Lintean, M.C., Banjade, R., Niraula, N.B., Stefanescu, D.: Semilar: the semantic similarity toolkit. In: ACL (Conference System Demonstrations), pp. 163–168. Association for Computational Linguistics (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sobell, L.C., Sobell, M.B.: Motivational interviewing strategies and techniques: rationales and examples (2008).
  24. 24.
    Socher, R., et al.: Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), vol. 1631, p. 1642 (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stefanescu, D., Banjade, R., Rus, V.: Latent semantic analysis models on wikipedia and tasa. In: Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pp. 1417–1422 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turian, J., Ratinov, L., Bengio, Y.: Word representations: a simple and general method for semi-supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 384–394. Association for Computational Linguistics (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu, M., Dredze, M.: Improving lexical embeddings with semantic knowledge. In: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 545–550 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rajendra Banjade
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nabin Maharjan
    • 1
  • Dipesh Gautam
    • 1
  • Frank Adrasik
    • 2
  • Arthur C. Graesser
    • 2
  • Vasile Rus
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science/Institute for Intelligent SystemsThe University of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology/Institute for Intelligent SystemsThe University of MemphisMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations