Statistical Uncertainty in Word Embeddings: GloVe-V
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Static word embeddings are ubiquitous in computational social science applications and contribute to practical decision-making in a variety of fields including law and healthcare. However, assessing the statistical uncertainty in downstream conclusions drawn from word embedding statistics has remained challenging. When using only point estimates for embeddings, researchers have no streamlined way of assessing the degree to which their model selection criteria or scientific conclusions are subject to noise due to sparsity in the underlying data used to generate the embeddings. We introduce a method to obtain approximate, easy-to-use, and scalable reconstruction error variance estimates for GloVe (Pennington et al., 2014), one of the most widely used word embedding models, using an analytical approximation to a multivariate normal model. To demonstrate the value of embeddings with variance (GloVe-V), we illustrate how our approach enables principled hypothesis testing in core word embedding tasks, such as comparing the similarity between different word pairs in vector space, assessing the performance of different models, and analyzing the relative degree of ethnic or gender bias in a corpus using different word lists.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2024.
Builds on
19 of 66 references.
References · 19
- 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,375
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,312
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 901
- 2017Word Embeddings Quantify 100 Years of Gender and Ethnic Stereotypescited by 253
- 2016Diachronic Word Embeddings Reveal Statistical Laws of Semantic Changecited by 221
- 2021What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?cited by 203
- 2020With Little Power Comes Great Responsibilitycited by 142
- 2018Understanding the Origins of Bias in Word Embeddingscited by 91
- 2019Understanding Undesirable Word Embedding Associationscited by 59
- 2018Towards Understanding Linear Word Analogiescited by 57
- 2018Factors Influencing the Surprising Instability of Word Embeddingscited by 33
- 2018What are the biases in my word embedding?cited by 30
7 more
- 2016Issues in evaluating semantic spaces using word analogiescited by 27
- 2016Evolutionary forces in language changecited by 10
- 2022Experimental Standards for Deep Learning in Natural Language Processing Researchcited by 10
- 2021Human Languages with Greater Information Density Increase Communication Speed, but Decrease Conversation Breadthcited by 5
- 2021Are Word Embedding Methods Stable and Should We Care About It?cited by 4
- 2022Gender and Racial Stereotype Detection in Legal Opinion Word Embeddingscited by 4
- 2019Context Vectors are Reflections of Word Vectors in Half the Dimensionscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
5 papers.
- 2025A New Pair of GloVescited by 3
- 2025Posterior Sampling of Probabilistic Word Embeddingscited by 0
- 2025Research on a hybrid LSTM-CNN-Attention model for text-based web content classificationcited by 0
- 2026Accurate and Efficient Statistical Testing for Word Semantic Breadthcited by 0
- 2026Forecasting Corpus-Sampling Disagreement in Masked Text Reconstructioncited by 0
- 2026Forecasting Corpus-Sampling Disagreement in Masked Text Reconstruction9 Oct 2026
- 2026Accurate and Efficient Statistical Testing for Word Semantic Breadth8 May 2026
- 2025Research on a hybrid LSTM-CNN-Attention model for text-based web content classification20 Dec 2025
- 2025Posterior Sampling of Probabilistic Word Embeddings4 Aug 2025
- 2025A New Pair of GloVes24 Jul 2025