Correspondence Analysis and PMI-Based Word Embeddings: A Comparative Study

Qianqian Qi, Ayoub Bagheri, David J. Hessen, Peter G. M. van der Heijden · May 31, 2024 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Popular word embedding methods such as GloVe and Word2Vec are related to the factorization of the pointwise mutual information (PMI) matrix. In this paper, we establish a formal connection between correspondence analysis (CA) and PMI-based word embedding methods. CA is a dimensionality reduction method that uses singular value decomposition (SVD), and we show that CA is mathematically close to the weighted factorization of the PMI matrix. We further introduce variants of CA for word-context matrices, namely CA applied after a square-root transformation (ROOT-CA) and after a fourth-root transformation (ROOTROOT-CA). We analyze the performance of these methods and examine how their success or failure is influenced by extreme values in the decomposed matrix. Although our primary focus is on traditionalstatic word embedding methods, we also include a comparison with a transformer-based encoder (BERT) to situate the results relative to contextual embeddings. Empirical evaluations across multiple corpora and word-similarity benchmarks show that ROOT-CA and ROOTROOT-CA perform slightly better overall than standard PMI-based methods and achieve results competitive with BERT.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.