This paper improves the use of pseudo-words as an evaluation framework for selectional preferences. While pseudo-words originally evaluated word sense disambiguation, they are now commonly used to evaluate selectional preferences. A selectional preference model ranks a set of possible arguments for a verb by their semantic fit to the verb. Pseudo-words serve as a proxy evaluation for these decisions. The evaluation takes an argument of a verb like drive (e.g. car), pairs it with an alternative word (e.g. car/rock), and asks a model to identify the original. This paper studies two main aspects of pseudoword creation that affect performance results. (1) Pseudo-word evaluations often evaluate only a subset of the words. We show that selectional preferences should instead be evaluated on the data in its entirety. (2) Different approaches to selecting partner words can produce overly optimistic evaluations. We offer suggestions to address these factors and present a simple baseline that outperforms the state-of-the-art by 13% absolute on a newspaper domain.
['Nathanael Chambers', 'Daniel Jurafsky']
Improving the Use of Pseudo-Words for Evaluating Selectional Preferences