the emergent structure of semantic knowledge

37
The Emergent Structure of Semantic Knowledge Jay McClelland Department of Psychology and Center for Mind, Brain, and Computation Stanford University

Upload: moses-gates

Post on 31-Dec-2015

27 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

The Emergent Structure of Semantic Knowledge. Jay McClelland Department of Psychology and Center for Mind, Brain, and Computation Stanford University. language. The Parallel Distributed Processing Approach to Semantic Cognition. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

The Emergent Structure of Semantic Knowledge

Jay McClelland

Department of Psychology andCenter for Mind, Brain, and Computation

Stanford University

Page 2: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

• Representation is a pattern of activation distributed over neurons within and across brain areas.

• Bidirectional propagation of activation underlies the ability to bring these representations to mind from given inputs.

• The knowledge underlying propagation of activation is in the connections.

• Experience affects our knowledge representations through a gradual connection adjustment process

language

The Parallel Distributed Processing Approach to Semantic Cognition

Page 3: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Distributed Representations:and Overlapping Patterns for Related

Concepts

dog goat hammer

dog goat hammer

Page 4: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Kiani et al, J Neurophysiol 97: 4296–4309, 2007.

Page 5: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Emergence of Meaning and Metaphor

• Learned distributed representations that capture important aspects of meaning emerge through a gradual learning process in simple connectionist networks

• Metaphor arises naturally as a byproduct of learning information in homologous domains in models of this type

Page 6: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Emergence of Meaning: Differentiation, Reorganization, and Context-Sensitivity

Page 7: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge
Page 8: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

The Rumelhart Model

Page 9: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

The Training Data:

All propositions true of items at the bottom levelof the tree, e.g.:

Robin can {grow, move, fly}

Page 10: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Target output for ‘robin can’ input

Page 11: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

aj

ai

wij

neti=ajwij

wki

Forward Propagation of Activation

Page 12: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

k ~ (tk-ak)

wij

i ~ kwki

wki

aj

Back Propagation of Error ()

Error-correcting learning:

At the output layer: wki = kai

At the prior layer: wij = jaj

ai

Page 13: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge
Page 14: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge
Page 15: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Experience

Early

Later

LaterStill

Page 16: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge
Page 17: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

• Waves of differentiation reflect coherent covariation of properties across items.

• Patterns of coherent covariation are reflected in the principal components of the property covariance matrix.

• Figure shows attribute loadings on the first three principal components:

– 1. Plants vs. animals– 2. Birds vs. fish– 3. Trees vs. flowers

• Same color = features covary in

component• Diff color = anti-covarying

features

What Drives Progressive

Differentiation?

Page 18: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Sensitivity to Coherence Requires Convergence

A

A

A

Page 19: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Conceptual Reorganization (Carey, 1985)

• Carey demonstrated that young children ‘discover’ the unity of plants and animals as living things with many shared properties only around the age of 10.

• She suggested that the coalescence of the concept of living thing depends on learning about diverse aspects of plants and animals including– Nature of life sustaining processes– What it means to be dead vs. alive– Reproductive properties

• Can reorganization occur in a connectionist net?

Page 20: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Conceptual Reorganization in the Model

• Suppose superficial appearance information, which is not coherent with much else, is always available…

• And there is a pattern of coherent covariation across information that is contingently available in different contexts.

• The model forms initial representations based on superficial appearances.

• Later, it discovers the shared structure that cuts across the different contexts, reorganizing its representations.

Page 21: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge
Page 22: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Organization of Conceptual Knowledge Early and Late in Development

Page 23: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge
Page 24: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Overall Structure Extracted by a Structured Statistical Model

Page 25: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge
Page 26: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Sensitivity to Context

Context-sensitive representation

Context-general representation

Page 27: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Relation-specificrepresentations

• IS Representations (top) reflect idiosyncratic appearance properties.

• HAS representations are similar to the context-general representations (middle).

• Can representations collapse differences between plants, since there is little that plants can do.

• The fish are all the same, because there’s no difference in what they can do.

Page 28: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Ongoing Work

• Can the representations learned in the distributed connectionist model capture different patterns of generalization of different kinds of properties?

• Simulations already show context-specific patterns of property generalization.

• We are currently collecting detailed data from a new data set to explore the sufficiency of the model to explain experimental data on context specific patterns of generalization.

Page 29: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Generalization of different property types

• At different points in training, the network is taught one of:– Maple can queem– Maple is queem– Maple has queem

• Only weights from hidden to output are allowed to change.

• Network is then tested to see how strongly ‘queem’ is activated then same relation is paired with other items.

queem

Page 30: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Generalization to other concepts after training with can, has, or is queem

Page 31: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Ongoing Work

• Can the representations learned in the distributed connectionist model capture different patterns of generalization of different kinds of properties?

• Our simulations already show context-specific patterns of property generalization.

We are currently conducting new experiments to gather experimental data on context specific patterns of generalization that we will use to test an extended version of the model trained with a much larger training set.

Page 32: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Metaphor in Connectionist Models of Semantics

• By metaphor I mean:

the application of a relation learned in one domain to a novel situation in another

Page 33: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Hinton’s Family Tree Network

Person 1 Relation

Person 2

Training data: Colin’s Father is James … Alfonso’s Father is Marco …

Page 34: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

English Tree Recovered Italian Tree Recovered

Page 35: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Understanding Via Metaphor in the Family Trees Network

Marco’s father is Pierro.Who is James’s father?

Page 36: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Future Work: Metaphors We Live By

• In Hinton’s model, neither domain is the base – each influences the other equally

• But research suggests that some domains serve as a base that influences other domains– Lakoff – physical structure as a base for the structure

of an intellectual argument– Boroditsky – space as a base for time

• In connectionist networks, primacy and frequency both influence performance

• This allows the models to simulate how early and pervasive experience may allow one domain to serve as the base for others experienced later or less frequently

• Influences can still run in both directions, but to different extents

Page 37: The Emergent Structure of  Semantic Knowledge

Emergence of Meaning and Metaphor

• Learned distributed representations that capture important aspects of meaning emerge through a gradual learning process in simple connectionist networks

• Metaphor arises naturally as a byproduct of learning information in homologous domains in models of this type