Stripeless incommensurate magnetism in a doped strongly correlated oxide

Abstract: We studied the nano-scale structure of the short-range incommensurate magnetic order in La1.5Sr0.5CoO4 by elastic neutron scattering. We find that magnetic diffuse scattering is isotropic in the a-b plane, in contrast with the naive expectation based on the popular stripe model. Indeed, charge segregation into lines favoring certain lattice direction(s) would facilitate linear stacking faults in an otherwise robust antiferromagnetism of un-doped material, leading to anisotropic disorder, with a characteristic symmetry pattern present in the neutron scattering data.

\section{Introduction}

Ever since the advent of high-temperature superconductivity (HTSC)
in cuprates, the physics of doped strongly correlated transition
metal oxides remains at the forefront of condensed matter research.
\cite{LeeNagaosaWen2006,OrensteinMillis2000,Tokura2003} In
particular, there is a renewed interest in metal-insulator
transitions associated with charge/orbital ordering in doped
manganese and nickel oxides and in "colossal" magnetoresistance
phenomena. \cite{Tokura2003,TokuraNagaosa2000,Imada1998} While
macroscopic magnetic and transport properties of strongly correlated
oxides respond to doping in many different and often fascinating
ways, the appearance of structural and magnetic superlattices whose
periods depend on the doping level is a common microscopic response
shared by many oxides.
\cite{Tranquada1994,Tranquada1995,Wells1997,Chen1993,Yoshizawa2000,Kajimoto2001,Ishizaka2003,Larochelle2001,Sakiyama2006,Zaliznyak}

Simultaneous incommensurate magnetic and charge ordering was
probably first observed in a doped nickelate,
La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$NiO$_{4+y}$. \cite{Tranquada1994} It gained
prominence when a similar phenomenon was discovered in a $x \approx
1/8$ doped cuprate with an anomalously suppressed superconductivity.
\cite{Tranquada1995} It was proposed that a simple model of
real-space static ordering of holes and spins, where doped charges
segregate into lines separating magnetically ordered stripe domains,
can explain all features observed by elastic neutron scattering. In
conjunction with earlier theoretical predictions of such
superstructures in the 2D Hubbard model, which is believed to
describe the physics of HTSC cuprates,
\cite{Zaanen1989,Emery1993,Machida1989,Machida1990} striped phases
gained broad popularity and became essentially a default model for
describing incommensurate magnetic and charge superstructures in
doped layered perovskite oxides La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$MO$_4$ (M = Cu, Ni,
Co, Mn).

There is a growing recognition, however, that physics of charge
ordering in cuprates may differ significantly from that in
well-insulating materials such as cobaltates and nickelates, where
it can also be viewed as ordering of polarons driven by lattice
elastic interactions. \cite{Zaanen1994,Khomskii2001,Collart2006} In
fact, it was argued theoretically that formation of superstructures
whose period depends on the doping level, including stripes, is a
natural response of the crystal lattice to local strain associated
with doped charges and can be already explained by considering the
system's elastic energy. \cite{Khomskii2001} Experiments indicate
this type of superlattices in layered manganates and cobaltates.
\cite{Sakiyama2006,Zaliznyak,Larochelle2001}

\begin{figure}[!b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{shortrange_Fig1.eps}%
\caption{\label{superlattice} (a) Checkerboard charge and spin order at
half-doping. (b) Stacking fault giving rise to short-range correlation
and magnetic incommensurability in La$_{1.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$CoO$_4$ in
stripe picture. (c), (d) LTO superlattice of weakly doped cuprates.
${\bf a^*}$, ${\bf b^*}$ are reciprocal lattice vectors of the HTT
phase, arrows show tilts of O octahedra. Stacking faults separating
structural domains with opposite tilts (broken lines) running along
"stripes" (perpendicular to $Q_c$), (c), and perpendicular to "stripes"
(parallel to $Q_c$), (d), have the same energy, implying isotropic
disorder. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}

In a superlattice, e.g. such as associated with polaron ordering,
atomic positions and/or alignment of magnetic moments do not vary in
the direction perpendicular to the propagation vector, presenting
superlattice modulation as a periodic arrangement of lines of
parallel spins and/or identical atomic displacements (Fig.
\ref{superlattice}). Hence, stripe superstructures resulting from
one-dimensional electronic phase segregation and elastic/magnetic
superlattices have similar appearance in real space. Accounting for
domains, they also give rise to similarly positioned elastic peaks
observable in scattering experiments. Hence, the question arises: is
it possible to distinguish between the two cases? Here we show that
for short-range superstructures this question can be answered by
studying the nano-scale structure of disorder. By measuring the
pattern of elastic neutron scattering, we find that short-range
incommensurate magnetism in half-doped cobaltite
La$_{1.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$CoO$_4$ does not originate from an intrinsically
one-dimensional stripe charge order.

At half-doping, the system is naturally amenable to a checkerboard
charge order (CO) where every other site in the $a-b$ plane of the
high-temperature tetragonal (HTT) structure accommodates a hole,
Fig. \ref{superlattice} (a). It is accompanied by a correlated
harmonic modulation of atomic positions with propagation vector $Q_c
= (1/2,1/2)$ in the HTT reciprocal lattice, resulting in a
superlattice with twice larger unit cell compared to the HTT phase
where $a = b \approx 3.83$ \AA. In stripe picture this type of CO
can be viewed as an alternate stacking of diagonal charge stripes.
The CO structural disorder results from faults in stripe stacking,
Fig. \ref{superlattice} (b), and is one-dimensional (1D) in nature.
The ordering of small polarons driven by lattice strain, on the
other hand, is in essence similar to the cooperative tilt pattern of
oxygen octahedra in the low-temperature orthorhombic (LTO) lattice,
which relieves chemical pressure in weakly doped cuprates, Fig.
1(c,d). Stacking faults have no intrinsic 1D rigidity and result in
randomly shaped domains and isotropic disorder.

Although $x=0.5$ regime is inaccessible in cuprates, checkerboard CO
was found for M = Ni, Co, Mn.
\cite{Kajimoto2001,Larochelle2001,Sakiyama2006,Zaliznyak} While
there is no yet consensus on the cobaltate, ordering in Mn material
is commonly viewed as a cooperative Jahn-Teller distortion, or CDW,
driven mainly by lattice elastic energy, \cite{Larochelle2001} while
that in the nickelate is usually discussed in terms of stripes,
\cite{Kajimoto2001} following the original proposition of Ref.
\onlinecite{Tranquada1994}. Although for different reasons, hole
sites are effectively nonmagnetic both in cobaltite and nickelate;
antiferromagnetic spin order (SO) on the remaining sites gives rise
to a superlattice with four times the period of the original HTT
lattice, Fig. 1(a). Experiments show that this spin order is usually
short-ranged, most probably reflecting the short-range nature of
charge/stripe superlattice. Then, it would be natural to expect that
structure of these short-range nano-scale spin correlations reflects
the structure of faults in the charge order, e. g. a disorder in the
form of linear magnetic disclinations associated with stripe
stacking faults, Fig. 1(b).

\section{Experimental procedure}

We studied a large single crystal of La$_{1.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$CoO$_{4}$
($m\approx 11$ g) grown by the floating zone method. It has a nearly
HTT structure with lattice parameters $a = b \approx 3.83$ \AA\ and
$c \approx 12.5$ \AA\ at T = 10 K and was previously described in
Ref. \onlinecite{Zaliznyak}. Sample mosaic spread is $\eta \approx
20'$. Measurements were done in (h,k,0) and (h,h,l) reciprocal
lattice zones using cold (SPINS) and thermal (BT9) neutron triple
axis spectrometers, respectively, at NIST Center for Neutron
Research. Monochromatic neutrons were obtained using (002)
reflection from vertically focussing pyrolytic graphite (PG)
crystals and analyzed using flat PG(002) analyzer crystals. On SPINS
beam collimations were $\approx 37'-80'-80'-240'$, from guide to
detector, and neutron final energy was $E_f = 5$ meV. Beryllium
filters both before and after the sample were used to remove the
contamination from higher order reflections in PG. On BT9 we used
$E_f = 14.7$ meV, collimations $\approx 40'-40'-40'-100'$, and PG
filters before and after the sample.

\begin{figure}[!b]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{shortrange-contourplots-data.ps}%
\caption{\label{data} Contour map of the measured neutron elastic
scattering intensity in (h,k,0) (a) and (h,h,l) (b) zones at T = 3.5
K and 10 K, respectively. Ellipses show the calculated full width at
half maximum (FWHM) instrument resolution.\cite{Cooper-Nathans}
Magnetic peaks are at $h,k \approx 0.25,0.75$ r.l.u. Charge order
scattering is seen at h = k = 0.5 r.l.u. Intensity in the map around
(1,1,0) Bragg peak shown in the top right corner was scaled down by
a factor of 100.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Color contour maps of the measured elastic scattering intensity are
shown in Fig. \ref{data} (a,b). Both in (h,k,0) (a) and (h,h,l) (b)
zones the observed peaks are much broader than the calculated
instrument resolution, which is illustrated by the FWHM ellipses.
Peaks of magnetic origin are at $h, k \approx 0.25$ and 0.75, while
those due to atomic displacement accompanying charge ordering are at
h = k = 0.5. Checkerboard CO in La$_{1.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$CoO$_{4}$ sets
in at about 825 K, while magnetic spin ordering appears only below
abound 30 K. \cite{Zaliznyak}

 \begin{figure}[!t]
 \includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{shortrange-scans.ps}
 \caption{\label{scans} Elastic neutron scattering from
La$_{1.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$CoO$_4$. (a) (h,k,0) reciprocal lattice zone,
(b) (h,h,l) zone. The lines show the global fit of the data to Eq.
(\ref{ndim}) describing coupled anisotropic 3D correlations.}

 \end{figure}

Selected scans around the magnetic peak position are presented in
Figure \ref{scans}. The lines show the result of the global fit of
all data to the resolution corrected anisotropic cross section given
by Eq. (\ref{ndim}) for $D = 3$, which is discussed in detail in the
next section.

Quantifying the nano-scale structure of short-range magnetic
correlations experimentally so as to distinguish between various
symmetries of magnetic domains requires accurate knowledge and deep
understanding of the resolution effects present in neutron
scattering measurements. In order to quantify the resolution
function and accurately account for the resolution effects we
measured elastic scattering intensity around (1,1,0) Bragg peak, in
the (h,k,0) orientation. The data scaled down by a factor of 100 in
order to roughly fit in the intensity range of magnetic scattering
are shown in the upper right corner of the contour plot of Figure
\ref{data}(a). It is immediately clear that magnetic peaks are much
broader than nuclear lattice peak, whose width is governed entirely
by the resolution and sample mosaics. A more detailed image of
intensity around (1,1,0) nuclear Bragg peak is shown in Fig.
\ref{Bragg110} (a). Intensity scale enhances regions with smaller
number of counts away from the peak.

\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{shortrange-110.eps}%
\caption{\label{Bragg110} Resolution and sample size effects for
(1,1,0) Bragg reflection. (a) Contour map of the measured neutron
scattering intensity in the (h,k,0) zone at T = 3.5 K. (b)
Calculated intensity for the point-like sample, corresponding to the
resolution-broadened delta function.\cite{Cooper-Nathans} (c) Same
as in (b), but with sample size effects included. Small extra
intensity extended along a diagonal corresponds to a small ($\sim
0.3\%$) oriented powder component with angular distribution of
$\approx 0.8^\circ$, much broader than sample mosaic spread $\eta
\approx 0.3^\circ$. }
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Resolution of the triple axis neutron spectrometer is usually
described using Cooper-Nathans formalism.\cite{Cooper-Nathans} We
show the result of such calculation for the (110) nuclear Bragg
reflection in Fig. \ref{Bragg110} (b). There is an obvious
discrepancy between the calculation and the observed intensity shown
in Fig. \ref{Bragg110} (a), which has a pronounced tail along
$k$-direction, resulting in an elliptical Bragg spot on the contour
map. This shape can be explained by taking into account the sample
size effects (our sample is a $\approx 5$ cm long cylinder, which
for scattering measurement in the (h,k,0) zone is mounted roughly
parallel to the scattering plane). In a very general way, this can
be done by using the method devised by Popovici, \cite{Popovici}
where sample is described in terms of a Gaussian density
distribution. Instead, here we have explicitly included the sample
size in the Cooper-Nathans calculation by averaging over the
scattering angle between the incident and scattered neutron beams,
which varies across the length of the sample. The result of such
calculation gives very good fit of the measured (110) nuclear Bragg
intensity, which is plotted in Fig. \ref{Bragg110} (c). Sample
mosaic was found to be $0.3^\circ$.

Mosaic structure of the (110) nuclear Bragg reflection in Fig.
\ref{Bragg110} (a) consists of a single peak, with no apparent
indication of an orthorhombic lattice distortion. \cite{Matsuura}
Therefore, if present, any such distortion is not detectable within
the accuracy of our measurement of nuclear Bragg reflections.
However, we find a small, $\sim 0.6\%$ distortion from the analysis
of magnetic scattering, which is described below.

\section{Analysis and discussion}

An appealing feature of stripe picture is that it provides a simple
real-space model explaining both temperature-dependent CO
incommensurability in nickelates and short-range incommensurate
magnetism in both Ni and Co materials. \cite{Kajimoto2001} In this
picture they arise from discommensurations, or faults in the
stacking pattern of 1D charge/spin stripes, favored by strong
nearest-neighbor exchange coupling on the HTT square lattice, Fig.
\ref{superlattice} (b). At half-doping such faults effectively
reduce the average period of magnetic structure within the
correlated domains in $a-b$ plane, consistent with slightly longer
than (1/4,1/4) SO wave vector $Q_{\rm so} \approx (0.256,0.256)$ in
La$_{1.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$CoO$_4$. \cite{Zaliznyak} It is also clear from
the figure that discommensurations introduce linear disclinations
parallel to stripes (coupling across two consecutive hole sites is
weak and frustrated) and therefore truncate spin correlation range.
This type of disorder has a specific imprint in the structure of
diffuse elastic peaks measured in scattering experiment.
\cite{Cowley,Wilson1942,Warren,Krivoglaz,Chen2005}

Anisotropic short-range-ordered superlattices are well known in the
physics of imperfect crystals and binary alloys, such as Cu$_{3}$Au.
\cite{Cowley,Wilson1942,Warren,Krivoglaz} Phase mismatches at the
boundaries of antiphase domains and/or stacking faults introduce
one-dimensional disorder in the direction perpendicular to the
defect planes. A combination of several systems of such phase slips
allowed in the crystal structure leads to a peculiar X-ray (and
neutron) scattering pattern, with tails along certain lattice
directions. \cite{Cowley,Warren}

Similar considerations can be extended to scattering by short-range
magnetic structures where disorder results from un-correlated
stacking faults (disclinations), such as shown in Fig.
\ref{superlattice} (b). \cite{ZaliznyakLee} The elastic magnetic
neutron scattering cross section is given by
\begin{equation}\label{magcs}
 \frac{d\sigma({\bf q})}{d\Omega} =
 N \left(\frac{r_{m}}{2\mu_{B}}\right)^{2} \sum_{j}^{N} {\rm e}^{-i {\bf q}\cdot{\bf R}_j}
 \langle {\bf M}_{0}^{\bot}(-{\bf q}){\bf M}_{j}^{\bot}({\bf
 q})\rangle,
\end{equation}

\noindent where $r_{m} \approx -5.39\cdot 10^{-13}$cm, $\mu_B$ is
the Bohr's magneton, ${\bf M}_{j}^{\bot}({\bf q})$ is the
perpendicular to the wave vector $\bf q$ component of the
Fourier-transform of the magnetization of atoms belonging to the
lattice unit cell at a position ${\bf R}_j$, and the sum extends
over all $N$ unit cells of the crystal. In the presence of
long-range magnetic order with wave vector {\bf Q},
\begin{equation}\label{longrange}
\langle {\bf M}_{j}({\bf q}) \rangle = {\bf m}({\bf q}) {\rm e}^{i {\bf
Q}\cdot{\bf R}_j} + {\bf m}^*({\bf q}) {\rm e}^{-i {\bf Q}\cdot{\bf
R}_j},
\end{equation}

\noindent where the order parameter ${\bf m}({\bf q})$ includes
Wannier function describing magnetic form factor of the unit cell.
Fourier-transform in Eq. (\ref{magcs}) is a sum of delta-functions
offset by $\bf Q$ from reciprocal lattice points.

Un-correlated magnetic disclinations in the crystal can be accounted
for by introducing additional random phase multipliers
$e^{-i\phi_{j}}$ in the magnetization density (\ref{longrange}). In
view of its randomness, averaging over this phase factor can be
decoupled in the correlation function in Eq. (\ref{magcs}). Assuming
self-averaging and Gaussian randomness, its statistical average is
$\langle e^{-i\phi_{j}}\rangle=e^{-\langle \phi_{j}^{2}\rangle /2}$
(Bloch identity) and the scattering cross-section is
\begin{equation}\label{sumlattice}
 \frac{d\sigma({\bf q})}{d\Omega} =
 N r_{m}^2 \left|\frac{{\bf m}^{\bot}({\bf q})}{2\mu_{B}}\right|^{2}
 \sum_{j}^{N} {\rm e}^{-i {\bf q}\cdot{\bf R}_{j}-\frac{1}{2} \langle \phi_{j}^{2}\rangle}.
\end{equation}

In the case of planar (linear in 2D) disclinations perpendicular to
principal lattice directions such as expected from stripes, the
accumulated mean-square phase mismatch can be described by
independent random walks along these directions. Then, $\langle
\phi_{j}^{2}\rangle/2 = \sum_{\alpha} |n_{j,\alpha}|/\xi_{\alpha}$,
where $n_{j,\alpha}$ label lattice sites, ${\bf
R}_{j}=\sum_{\alpha}n_{j,\alpha}{\bf a}_{\alpha}$, and
$\xi_{\alpha}$ are correlation lengths in appropriate units ($\alpha
= x,y,z$). Substituting this into Eq. (\ref{magcs}), one obtains
cross-section in the form of a product of 1D lattice-Lorentzians
(LL),
\begin{equation}\label{latticelorentzian}
 \tilde{L}_{\xi_{\alpha}}(q_{\alpha})\equiv \frac{\sinh \xi_{\alpha}^{-1}}{\cosh \xi_{\alpha}^{-1}-
 \cos(q_\alpha \pm Q_{\alpha})},
\end{equation}

\noindent along principal crystallographic directions (Eq.
(\ref{latticelorentzian}) is a sum of Lorentzians placed
periodically in reciprocal lattice). Factorized cross-section is a
consequence of the 1D nature of disorder generated by system of
linear/planar phase slips. It retains the orientational symmetry of
these defects in the crystal lattice.

 \begin{table}[!ht]

 \caption{\label{coupling}Scattering functions for different structure of the nano-scale
 disorder on a 3D lattice (assuming large $\xi_\alpha$).}
 \begin{ruledtabular}
 \begin{tabular}{lc}
 type of disorder & scattering cross section\\
 \hline
 1D$\times$1D$\times$1D & $(1+q_{1}^{2}\xi_{1}^{2})^{-1}(1+q_{2}^{2}\xi_{2}^{2})^{-1}(1+q_{3}^{2}\xi_{3}^{2})^{-1}$ \\
 2D$\times$1D & $(1+q_{1}^{2}\xi_{1}^{2}+q_{2}^{2}\xi_{2}^{2})^{-1.5}(1+q_{3}^{2}\xi_{3}^{2})^{-1}$\\
 3D & $(1+q_{1}^{2}\xi_{1}^{2}+q_{2}^{2}\xi_{2}^{2}+q_{3}^{2}\xi_{3}^{2})^{-2}$
 \end{tabular}
 \end{ruledtabular}

 \end{table}

If, perhaps upon appropriate re-scaling of co-ordinates, the
disorder is isotropic, such as introduced for example by the domain
structure in the random field Ising model (RFIM),
\cite{ZacharZaliznyak} phase slips depend only on $|{\bf R}_{j}|$
and $\langle \phi_{j}^2\rangle/2 = \frac{|{\bf n}_{j}|}{\xi}$. While
the lattice sum can not be easily evaluated, it can be rewritten as
an integral which is repeated periodically in reciprocal lattice and
summed to restore the lattice translational symmetry. For a
$D$-dimensional lattice ($D = 1,2,3$), the result is a
generalized-lattice-Lorentzian function,
\begin{equation}\label{ndim}
   \sum_{\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$}} \left(1+\displaystyle\sum_{\alpha=1}^{D}(q_{\alpha}\pm
   Q_{\alpha}+\tau_{\alpha})^2\xi_{\alpha}^{2}\right)^{-\frac{D+1}{2}},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\xi_{\alpha}$ are the original un-rescaled
correlation lengths and $\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$}$ are reciprocal lattice vectors.
Cross-section of the form given by Eq. \ref{ndim} was observed in
neutron scattering experiments in two- and three-dimensional random
field Ising ferro- and antiferro-magnets, in particular in
Rb$_{2}$Co$_{0.7}$Mg$_{0.3}$F$_{4}$ and
Co$_{0.35}$Zn$_{0.65}$F$_{2}$. \cite{Birgeneau1983,Hagen1983}

Scattering functions for different combinations of disorder
described by Eqs. (\ref{latticelorentzian}) and (\ref{ndim}) on a 3D
lattice are summarized in Table \ref{coupling}. A fully factorized
(product of LL in all 3 directions) 1D$\times$1D$\times$1D
cross-section can be expected in stripe picture for
La$_{1.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$CoO$_4$. Indeed, discommensurations destroy
magnetic correlation perpendicular to stripes without seriously
affecting order along them. Similarly, the inter-plane correlation
is destroyed by faults in plane stacking. Resulting diffuse
scattering has diamond-like shape reminiscent of a superposition of
quasi-1D "rods" of scattering extended perpendicular to stripes
and/or planes, such as shown in Fig. \ref{sims}(a). Cross-section
corresponding to anisotropic 3D domains given by a
lattice-Lorentzian-squared is shown in Fig. \ref{sims}(b)

\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{shortrange-contourplotssim.eps}
\caption{\label{sims} Simulated magnetic scattering intensity for
La$_{1.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$CoO$_4$ in the (h,k,0) reciprocal lattice zone
with anisotropic correlation lengths in the a-b plane $\xi_{1,1,0} =
9.2$ and $\xi_{1,-1,0} = 18.4$ LTO (HTT diagonal) lattice units
(l.u.). 2:1 ratio of the correlation lengths corresponds to findings
of Ref. \onlinecite{Du2000}. (a) factorized 1D lattice Lorentzian
cross-section (b) Lorentzian-squared corresponding to anisotropic 3D
disorder.}
\end{figure}

Whether the disorder-generating defects are independent
linear/planar disclinations or not (i. e. independent of how the
cross-section is factorized and which of the models listed  in Table
\ref{coupling} is appropriate), one expects an in-plane anisotropy
between the correlation length along and perpendicular to stripe
direction within the stripe model.\cite{Du2000} Hence, within this
model we expect two weak contributions to magnetic scattering in our
sample, at the diagonal positions h = k $\approx 1/4, 3/4$ in the
(h,k,0) zone of the tetragonal unit cell, which are extended along
this diagonal, indicating shorter correlations perpendicular to
stripes. Their intensity is weak because they are just tails of
magnetic peaks at (1/4,1/4,1) and (3/4,3/4,1) resulting from finite
correlation length (peak width) along the $c$ axis. The strong
signal, which is present in our data at (1/4,3/4,0) and (3/4,1/4,0),
arises from twin magnetic domains in the sample, and thus its
intensity pattern is rotated by 90$^\circ$. Overall, all peaks
should exhibit C$_{2}$ symmetry and contributions from twin domains
should be rotated 90$^\circ$ with respect to each other.

In Figure \ref{sims} we show simulated magnetic scattering intensity
for our sample arising from anisotropic short-range magnetic
correlations expected in the stripe model with correlation length
ratio 2:1, chosen to compare with the data of Ref.
\onlinecite{Du2000}. Fig \ref{sims} (a) shows simulated neutron
scattering data for the factorized-lattice-Lorentzian cross-section,
while scattering corresponding to the lattice-Lorentzian-squared
from anisotropic 3D correlations is presented in Fig \ref{sims} (b).
Equal contributions from both twin domains were assumed.

\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width=3.2in,angle=0]{shortrange-fits.ps}
\caption{\label{xidep}(a) Typical scan through magnetic peak with
fits to cross-sections for completely independent linear
disclinations [(1D)$^{3}$], isotropic disorder in $a-b$ plane with
stacking faults along $c$ (2Dx1D), or disorder coupled in all 3
directions (3D). (b) and (c) ``correlation length'' for scans offset
by $\delta q$ from the magnetic peak position, {\bf Q} $\approx$
(0.744+$\delta h$,0.256-$\delta h$,0) for (b) and {\bf Q} $\approx$
(0.256+$\delta h$,0.256+$\delta h$,1) for (c). The solid/dashed
lines are single-parameter fits to Eq. \ref{Lorfit}, $\delta$q =
$\delta h \sqrt{2}$.}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\includegraphics[width=6.7in,angle=0]{shortrange-contourfits.ps}%
\caption{\label{fits} Fit results of neutron scattering intensity in
(h,k,0) (a),(c),(e) and (h,h,l) (b),(d),(f) zones at T=3.5K and 10K.
1D$\times$1D$\times$1D correlation (stripe-like) are in (a) and
(b).(c) and (d) show results for 2D$\times$1D correlations. (e) and
(f)Fitted intensity patterns for coupled isotropic correlations
(superlattice)}
\end{figure*}

From comparing Fig. \ref{data} (a, b) and Fig. \ref{sims} (a, b) it
is already clear that short-range magnetic order in
La$_{1.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$CoO$_4$ is neither anisotropic in the $a-b$
plane, nor it is described by independent one-dimensional magnetic
disclinations associated with stripes running along diagonals of the
HTT unit cell, Fig. \ref{superlattice} (b). It is rather consistent
with anisotropic short-range 3D superlattice model with equal
correlation lengths in the $a-b$ plane. This can be further
quantified by fitting to Eq. (\ref{ndim}) 1D scans made at different
off-sets $\delta q$ from the magnetic peak position along the
diagonal of the HTT unit cell, Fig. \ref{xidep} (a). ``Correlation
lengths'' obtained from such fits of scans along (h,h,0) and (0,0,l)
directions are shown in Fig. \ref{xidep}. For now, we neglect the
instrumental resolution effects which are small compared to much
larger width of magnetic/charge order peaks. In this case, for the
factorized LL scattering cross-section so determined $\xi_\alpha$
should be independent of $\delta q$, while for D = 2,3,
\begin{equation}\label{Lorfit}
    \xi_\alpha^{fit}=\xi_\alpha /\sqrt{1+\sum_{\beta\neq\alpha}(\delta q_\beta \xi_\beta)^{2}},
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\xi_\alpha$ is magnetic correlation length in the
corresponding direction. Fits shown in Fig. \ref{xidep} (b) and (c)
using Equation \ref{Lorfit} yield $\xi_{1,1,0}^{3D}$=7.0 and
$\xi_{1,1,0}^{2D \times 1D}$=9.6 (HTT diagonal) lattice units, and
$\xi_{0,0,1}^{3D}$=0.68  l.u. Note, that these values are obtained
neglecting the resoluntion corrections, and thus represent lower
limits for the corresponding correlation length.

While different fits to 1D scan through magnetic peak shown in Fig.
\ref{xidep} (a) can be hardly distinguished, variation of the fitted
correlation length $\xi_{1,1,0}^{fit}$ with off-set from the peak
position shown in Fig. \ref{xidep} (b) is clearly inconsistent with
the factorized scattering cross-section expected for independent
disclinations associated with stripes in the $a-b$ plane. Moreover,
variation of $\xi_c^{fit}$ obtained from measurements around
(1/4,1/4,1) in the (h,h,l) zone shown in Fig. \ref{xidep} (c) rules
out factorization into a 2D dependence in the $a-b$ plane and a 1D
dependence along $c$-axis, such as arises from independent planar
stacking faults.
Therefore, our results are best described by Eq. (\ref{ndim}) with
D=3 and anisotropic correlation lengths, indicating disorder typical
of an anisotropic 3D random field Ising model.
\cite{ZacharZaliznyak} This is further confirmed quantitatively by
fitting the entire data set to resolution corrected cross sections
from Table \ref{coupling}. Such fits yield $\chi^{2}$ per degree of
freedom values of 6.4 (3D), 10.3 (2D$\times$1D) and 13.6
[(1D)$^{3}$]. For the 3D case (fits are shown in Fig. \ref{scans}
and Fig. \ref{fits} (e, f)) we obtain correlation lengths
$\xi_{1,1,0}=\xi_{1,-1,0}$= 9.4 LTO (HTT diagonal) lattice units
(50.9 \AA) and $\xi_c$= 0.58 l.u. (7.25 \AA). For 2D $\times$ 1D
case, $\xi_{1,1,0}=\xi_{1,-1,0}$= 10.2 l.u. (55.2 \AA), $\xi_c$= 0.9
l.u. (11.3 \AA) and for 1Dx1Dx1D case, $\xi_{1,1,0}=\xi_{1,-1,0}$=
13.3 l.u. (72.1 \AA), $\xi_c$= 1.1 l.u. (13.8 \AA). The latter
compare well with the previous results of Ref.
\onlinecite{Zaliznyak}, although now it is clear from our present
data that a factorized cross-section is not an appropriate model for
magnetic scattering in La$_{1.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$CoO$_4$. Color contour
plots of the calculated intensities corresponding to the above
fitting results are shown in Figure \ref{fits}.

Finally, we also found that magnetic scattering pattern in (hk0)
zone allows us to refine small orthorhombic distortion of the
crystal lattice of about 0.6\% in the $a-b$ plane ($a/b\approx
1.006$).

\section{Summary and conclusions}

In summary, incommensurate magnetic and charge superstructures
observed in hole-doped cuprates, nickelates and cobaltates
La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$MO$_4$ (M = Cu, Ni, Co, Mn) are often described in
terms of discommensurations in the quasi-regular stacking of charge
lines separating antiferromagnetically ordered stripe domains.
Existence of such faults in stripe stacking has two essential
consequences. First, it renders the super-lattice
incommensurability, which can explain the temperature-dependent
incommensurate magnetism observed in hole-doped nickelates with
$0.25 \lesssim x \lesssim 0.5$. \cite{Kajimoto2001,Ishizaka2003}
Secondly, stacking faults truncate the super-lattice coherence,
resulting in a short-range glassy superstructure, which manifests
itself in experiment by finite-width, diffuse peaks of elastic
scattering in place of Bragg reflections.

Experimental studies of short-range magnetic and/or charge
scattering such as presented in this paper provide an important tool
for investigating spin- and charge-ordered phases and testing
various flavors of stripe models. Our results present strong
evidence that stripe-type superstructure is not at the origin of
incommensurate short-range magnetism in the half-doped cobaltate
La$_{1.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$CoO$_4$. This is not completely unexpected, as
charge order in this material occurs independently of magnetic
order, in a well-insulating state and at much higher temperature.
\cite{Zaliznyak} It is mainly driven by lattice electrostatics and
local spin entropy competing with the crystal field splitting of Co
ion's energy levels. Magnetic incommensurability in this picture can
result from an inhomogeneous exchange modulation induced by CO.
\cite{Zaliznyak2003} The rigidity of quasi-1D charge-stripe
segregation, on the other hand, is rendered by the kinetic energy of
charge hopping, \cite{Tranquada1995,Zaanen1989,Emery1993} which
seems insignificant in our case. Our analysis can be applied to
investigating the relevance of kinetic energy driven segregation of
doped charges into stripes in cuprates and for "diagonal stripe" CO
in other insulating La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$MO$_4$ oxides. Such studies of
"stripe-ordered" nickelates and cuprates are currently under way.

\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank NIST Center for Neutron Research for hospitality and
J.~Tranquada and M.~H\"{u}cker for discussions. This work was
performed under Contract DE-\-AC02-\-98CH10886, Division of Material
Sciences, US Department of Energy, and utilized facilities supported
in part by the National Science Foundation under Agreement
DMR-0454672.
\end{acknowledgments}

Strongly Correlated Electrons (cond-mat.str-el)


Metaphor Interpretation Using Word Embeddings

Abstract: We suggest a model for metaphor interpretation using word embeddings trained over a relatively large corpus. Our system handles nominal metaphors, like "time is money". It generates a ranked list of potential interpretations of given metaphors. Candidate meanings are drawn from collocations of the topic ("time") and vehicle ("money") components, automatically extracted from a dependency-parsed corpus. We explore adding candidates derived from word association norms (common human responses to cues). Our ranking procedure considers similarity between candidate interpretations and metaphor components, measured in a semantic vector space. Lastly, a clustering algorithm removes semantically related duplicates, thereby allowing other candidate interpretations to attain higher rank. We evaluate using different sets of annotated metaphors, with encouraging preliminary results.

\section{Introduction}

Metaphor is pervasive in language and thought \cite{gentner_metaphor_2001}.
A specific metaphor often has an ambiguous interpretation.
For example, when we say {\it memory is a river}, both {\it fluid} and {\it long} might be considered acceptable interpretations \cite{Roncero2015}.
The intended meaning of a metaphor may be related more to the topic, the vehicle, or to both.
For example, when one says that {\it Joe is a chicken}, the meaning is usually  described as being {\it afraid}, which is more closely related to the vehicle {\it chicken} than to the topic {\it Joe}.

We describe a system designed for interpreting nominal metaphors given without context. Similarly to previous works, we exploit a large corpus of text documents for semantically describing words and properties using a mathematical device. We use a word-embedding representation for calculating similarity between a candidate interpretation and the topic and the vehicle, so as to rank  candidates based on a semantic score. As a final step, we automatically cluster  results and keep only the best interpretations out of each cluster.

\section{Metaphor Processing}
Given a metaphor, we begin by generating a list of interpretation candidates. We do this by finding  collocations of the topic and vehicle individually, and consider each one of them as a potential candidate. For each candidate $c$, we calculate a topic semantic score, which is the cosine similarity between $c$ and the $k$ most significant collocations of the topic  ($k$ is a parameter) and aggregate it into a single score. We use average for aggregation. Similarly, we calculate a vehicle semantic score.

In the next step, we calculate two pointwise mutual information (PMI) values, between $c$ and the topic and vehicle respectively. We add the frequency of $c$ as another score and combine all the five score functions in a log-linear structure, with weights assigned to each. The weights are adjusted automatically.

To remove semantically related interpretations from the list, we cluster the results and keep only the highest ranked candidates in each cluster. The remaining candidates are ranked according to their final score and the best $n$ candidates ($n$, too, is a parameter) are returned as interpretations.

Similar to other relevant works, an \textit{interpretation} is  taken to be a single word that conveys the main concept of the metaphor. For example, among the interpretations of the metaphor {\it city is a jungle} one can find {\it crazy} and {\it crowded}. As is common works, we consider all adjectives as potential interpretations. Additionally, gerunds are good candidates. In \cite{meta4meaning}, they only consider abstract words as potential interpretations. The level of abstractness of a word was measured by Turney et al.~\cite{Turney:2011:LMS:2145432.2145511} automatically for about 11,000 words. To avoid the limitation in using such a list, we did not go that route.

Our interpretation process begins with extracting collocations of the vehicle and the topic individually using a relatively large corpus. Specifically, we use DepCC,\footnote{\url{https://www.inf.uni-hamburg.de/en/inst/ab/lt/resources/data/depcc.html}} a dependency-parsed ``web-scale corpus'' based on CommonCrawl.\footnote{\url{http://commoncrawl.org}} There are 365 million documents in the corpus, comprising about 252B tokens. Among other preprocessing steps, every sentence was given with word dependencies discovered by MaltParser \cite{Nivre05maltparser:a}. We only use a fraction of the corpus containing some 1.7B tokens.
Here, we considered a ``collocation'' to be words that are found to be dependent in either the topic or the vehicle, and assigned with a relevant part-of-speech tag: adjective or verb+{\it ing}. The main assumption  is that many   potential modifiers of a given noun will appear somewhere in the corpus as a dependent in the dependency graph.

For example, the dependency-based collocations for  {\it school} are: {\it high}, {\it elementary}, {\it old}, {\it grad}, {\it middle}, {\it med}, {\it private}, {\it attending}, {\it graduating}, {\it secondary}, {\it leaving}, and {\it primary}.

To eliminate noisy results that might transpire given that the corpus was generated from the open web, we preserve only candidates that have an entry in WordNet \cite{fellbaum98wordnet}.

In parallel with our objective data-driven collocation extraction process, we experimented with word associations as an alternative, more subjective, process for generating interpretation candidates.  Word-association norms are repositories of pairs of words and their association frequency in a given population. The first word is a cue or trigger given to participants, and the second is the reported  associated word that first came to a subject's mind. For example, {\it bank} is paired with {\it money}, because the cue {\it bank} often elicits the response {\it money}. Those pairs form various semantic-relation types; some might not be deemed symmetric. Word association norms have been used in psychological and medical research, as well as a device for measuring creativity.

We use the University of South Florida Free (USF) Association Norms \cite{nelson2004university}\footnote{\url{http://w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation}} for generating alternative candidates. This repository contains 5,019 cue words that were given to 6,000 participants beginning in 1973. The way we work with this repository is by adding all the associated words of the topic and vehicle individually. In this case, we allow words of all POS classes to be considered as candidates. For example, the associations for cue  {\it school} are: {\it work}, {\it college}, {\it book}, {\it bus}, {\it learn}, {\it study}, {\it student}, {\it homework}, {\it teacher}, {\it class}, {\it education}, {\it USF} (!), {\it hard}, {\it boring}, {\it child}, {\it house}, {\it day}, {\it elementary}, {\it friend}, {\it grade}, {\it time}, {\it yard}.
We evaluate our system's performance with and without the associations.

For each candidate we calculate a couple of semantic scores, one for the topic and one for the vehicle. We use word embeddings to transform every word into a continuous vector that captures the meaning of the word, as evidenced in the underlying corpus.
We used pre-trained \textsf{GloVe} \cite{pennington2014glove} vectors; specifically, we use the ones that were trained over a 6B token corpus, comprising 400K vectors, each of 300 dimensions.
In what follows, we denote the vector of a word $v$ by $w_v$.

We believe that the most significant collocations of the topic/vehicle tend to reliably represent the way the topic/vehicle, respectively, can be described in different contexts. Therefore, the semantic score ${\it sem}(c, t)$ of a candidate $c$ and the topic $t$ is the average cosine similarity between $w_c$ and the vectors of the $k$ most significant collocations of $t$. Similarly, ${\it sem}(c, v)$ is the semantic score of a candidate $c$ and the vehicle $v$. We experimented with different values for $k$. Results are reported in the next section.

For each candidate $c$, we calculate ${\it npmi}(c, t)$ and ${\it npmi}(c,v)$, the normalized Pointwise Mutual Information (PMI) values for the topic and vehicle, respectively. Normalized PMI is similar to PMI, except that it is normalized between $-1$ and 1. The PMI between a candidate $c$ and a noun $n$ is calculated over the dependency graph; that is, we calculate the chances of seeing $c$ as a dependent of $n$ in a dependency graph.
We add ${\it freq}(c)$, the frequency of $c$ as another score, calculated over the entire corpus.

To summarize, given a candidate $c$, the full list of scores is
\[
\langle \textit{sem}(c, t), \textit{sem}(c, v), \textit{npmi}(c, t),  npmi(c, v), \textit{freq}(c)\rangle
\]
combined using a log-linear structure, with each score  amplified by a weight:
\[\textit{FinalScore}(c) = \sum_{k=1}^5 \lambda_k \log \textit{score}_k\]
We automatically adjust these weights over a development set of metaphors and interpretations to optimize for recall, as explained below. As a result, each candidate is ranked according to its final score.

Lastly, we  cluster the list of candidates as a way to deduplicate it. We run clustering using word vectors for finding groups of words that have a strong semantic association of any kind, keeping only the best candidates in each cluster.

We use Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) for clustering. This  method  groups together vectors that are bundled in the space by forcing a minimum number of neighbors. Vectors that do not have the requisite number of neighbors, or in other words occur in low-density areas, are reported as noise and are not placed under any cluster. For us it means that they were not connected with other vectors, so they might have a unique meaning among the listed candidates. We treat such vectors as if they  form  singletons.

For example, among the interpretation candidates for the metaphor {\it anger is fire} we find {\it red} and {\it black}. After clustering, {\it black} is removed. As another example, the following candidates for the metaphor {\it a desert is an oven} may be grouped together: {\it eating}, {\it healthy}, {\it delicious}, {\it fried}, {\it spicy}, {\it leftover}, {\it veggie}, {\it steamed}, {\it lentil}, {\it roasted}, {\it homemade}, {\it yummy}, {\it creamy}, {\it glazed}, {\it seasoning}, {\it crunchy}, {\it baking}. (These likely result from the frequent misspelling of ``dessert'' in the corpus used.)

There are two parameters that need to be configured for DBSCAN: (1) $\varepsilon$  -- the radius of the consideration area around every vector; and
(2) $\mu$  -- the minimum number of neighbors required in the consideration area. The distance measure should also be configured. We use the common Euclidean distance, which usually shows good performance in a relatively low-dimension space like ours.

\section{Experimental Results}

We evaluate our system with the dataset published by \cite{Roncero2015}, containing 84 unique topic/vehicle pairs that were associated with interpretations by twenty different study participants. Each participant was asked to assign interpretation for different aspects of the pairs, such as treating a pair as a metaphor (e.g.\@ {\it knowledge}/{\it power}, from the phrase {\it knowledge is power}) or as a simile (e.g.\@ {\it knowledge}/{\it power}, from {\it knowledge is like power}). We focus on the interpretation of metaphors, both lexicalized and non-lexicalized.

As a preprocessing step, we lemmatize the interpretations, so as to allow our method's results and the true interpretations to match more smoothly. Additionally, we allow interpretations to match if they are considered as synonyms in WordNet. In this work we focus on nominal metaphors, and since our collocation as well as word-embedding models were trained to handle unigrams, we had to modify some of the metaphors that have multiword vehicles; for example {\it sermon is a sleeping pill}. Therefore, we modified such multiword vehicles into one word simply by eliminating the space characters, knowing it may cause performance reduction; for example, {\it sermon is a sleeping pill} was modified to {\it sermon is a sleepingpill}.

Each metaphor might be associated with more than one interpretation. As do other related works \cite{meta4meaning,Roncero2015}, we only consider interpretations that were assigned by at least five participants; we call them {\it qualified interpretations}. This leaves us with only 76 qualified metaphors (i.e.\@ metaphors with at least one qualified interpretation), with two qualified interpretations per metaphor on average.

To stay in line with related works \cite{meta4meaning}, we report  {\it Recall} @$K$, which is the average percentage of human-associated interpretations that are found in the top $K$ results. For example, the following results were generated for the pair {\it skating/flying}: {\it incredible}, {\it high}, {\it free}, {\it great}, {\it fast}. Therefore, Recall@3 is 33\%, while Recall@5 is 66\%. We compare our results with \cite{meta4meaning}, which was evaluated on the same dataset following a similar preprocessing step. Therefore, we report on Recall at their reported $K$'s: 5, 10, 15, 25, and 50.

To measure the false positives reported by the system, we evaluate the results with two additional standard metrics: mean reciprocal rank (MRR) and mean average precision (MAP).

Our log-linear structure is composed of a set of weighted score functions. We adjust the scores using a tuning process over a development set, composed of about 50\% of the metaphors. For each weight, we explore a range of possible scores, while we test all possible score combinations taking the brute force approach. For all scores except {\it freq}, we consider the range $0.1 \mathrel{..} 1$; because of scale differences, for {\it freq} we consider the range $1 \mathrel{..} 10$.

We take a similar brute force approach for tuning the DBSCAN clustering parameters, $\varepsilon$ and $\mu$. We also tune $n$, the number of top results  taken from  each cluster. For tuning, we use the same development set, evaluated over MRR, MAP and Recall @$K$ values. Table \ref{tab:tuningParams} shows the ranges and best values of all the parameters we tune.

We see that both semantic scores get higher weights than the npmi scores, suggesting that the semantic distance as measured by cosine similarity between the vectors of the candidates and the collocations of the topic/vehicle, is effective. The DBSCAN parameters are less stable across different metric optimizations. One thing we learn is that when optimizing for larger values of $@K$, DBSCAN requires dense areas around clustered vectors, resulting in a lower number of clusters. Additionally, the system does not benefit from high values of the DBSCAN $n$ parameter. It turns out that it is better to consider only one interpretation from each cluster.

\begin{table}[t]
\caption{System parameters tuned to maximize MRR, MAP and Recall@$K$. The second column shows the range of values considered.}\label{tab:tuningParams}
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\bf Param & \bf Range &  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf MRR} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf MAP} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @5} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @10} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @15} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @25} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @50}\\\hline\hline
DBSCAN $\varepsilon$ & $1   \mathrel{..} 6$ & 4 & 5 & 4 & 5 & 5 & 4 & 4\\
\hline
DBSCAN $\mu$ & $1  \mathrel{..} 5$ & 4 & 1 & 6 & 1 & 5 & 5 & 5\\
\hline
DBSCAN $n$ & $1  \mathrel{..}  12$ & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
\hline
$\textit{sem}(c, t)$ & $0.1  \mathrel{..}  1$ & 0.6 & 0.6 & 0.6 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.6 & 0.6\\
\hline
$\textit{sem}(c, v)$ & $0.1  \mathrel{..}  1$ & 1.1 & 1.1 & 1.1 & 0.6 & 0.6 & 1.1 & 1.1\\
\hline
$\textit{npmi}(c, t)$ & $0.1  \mathrel{..}  1$ & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1\\
\hline
$\textit{npmi}(c, v)$ & $0.1  \mathrel{..}  1$ & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1\\
\hline
$\textit{freq}(c)$ & $1  \mathrel{..}  10$ & 3 & 3 & 5 & 7 & 7 & 5 & 3\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

We evaluate our system against the 76 ``qualified'' metaphors in the dataset. For each metaphor, our system generates the top 100  interpretation results, which are then compared with the metaphor's human-associated qualified interpretations. For the clustering parameters and scoring weights, we use the tuned values  reported in the previous subsections. Since we tune  for different evaluation metrics, here we individually use each set of values for generating the top 100 results and calculating MRR, MAP and recall at all the relevant $K$ values.
Table \ref{tab:results} summarizes the evaluation results at MRR, MAP and Recall@5, @10, @15, @25, and @50, for each set of parameter values. We observe that when optimizing the system for Recall@50 we  at least get close to the best result for all other evaluation metrics. Therefore, in what follows we use  the parameter values optimized for @50.

\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Each row shows evaluation results when using optimal parameter values for the metric mentioned in the first column.}\label{tab:results}
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
 \bf Optimization &  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf MRR} &
 \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf MAP} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @5} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @10} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @15} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @25} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @50}\\\hline\hline
MRR & \bf{0.312} & \bf{0.170} & 0.198 & 0.254 & 0.278 & 0.405 & 0.562\\
\hline
MAP & \bf{0.312} & \bf{0.170} & 0.198 & 0.254 & 0.278 & 0.405 & 0.562\\
\hline
@5 & 0.302 & 0.166 & \bf{0.207} & 0.258 & 0.270 & 0.430 & 0.548\\
\hline
@10 & 0.233 & 0.151 & 0.180 & \bf{0.273} & 0.322 & 0.374 & 0.521\\
\hline
@15 & 0.245 & 0.160 & 0.151 & 0.262 & \bf{0.331} & 0.392 & 0.513\\
\hline
@25 & 0.302 & 0.166 & \bf{0.207} & 0.258 & 0.270 & \bf{0.430} & 0.548\\
\hline
@50 & \bf{0.312} & \bf{0.170} & 0.198 & 0.254 & 0.278 & 0.405 & \bf{0.562}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

We compare our results with the ones reported by Meta4meaning \cite{meta4meaning}, evaluating over the same set of metaphors and following similar preprocessing steps. Table \ref{tab:compResults} compares the results reported by both systems. While our system somewhat underperforms for the lower values of Recall $@k$, it is doing slightly better on @25 and @50. These results show that, while our system has a better overall coverage,  correct interpretations are concentrated more in the lower part of the ranked list that we produce. With more work, we expect to be able to filter out many of the non-associated interpretations, thereby ranking the correct ones higher in the list.

\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Comparison with Meta4meaning.}\label{tab:compResults}
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
 \bf System &  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf MRR} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf MAP} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @5} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @10} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @15} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @25} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @50}\\\hline\hline
Meta4meaning & N/A & N/A & \bf 0.221 & \bf 0.303 & \bf 0.339 & 0.397 & 0.454 \\
\hline
Ours & 0.312 & 0.170 & 0.198 & 0.254 & 0.278 & \bf 0.405 & \bf 0.562 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

To measure the effect of clustering on the results, we evaluate our system running with and without clustering. When running with clustering, we use the optimized set of parameters, as reported in Table \ref{tab:tuningParams}. Table \ref{tab:clusteringCompareResults} compares our system's results, with and without clustering. We learn that when using clustering, our system was able to eliminate noise in lower parts of the ranked list of candidates, thereby making room for alternative and correct interpretations that ranked lower without clustering.

\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Evaluation results, with and without clustering.}\label{tab:clusteringCompareResults}
\footnotesize
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
 \bf Method & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @5} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @10} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @15} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @25} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\bf @50}\\\hline\hline
w/o clustering & 0.198 & 0.254 & 0.278 & 0.351 & 0.534 \\
\hline
w/ clustering & 0.198 & 0.254 & 0.278 & \bf 0.405 & \bf 0.562 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace*{-4mm}
\end{table}

Finally, we check how our system's performance is affected by adding word associations as an additional source for generating interpretation candidates.
When we run our system using only dependency-based collocations as candidates, we obtain Recall@50 score of 0.55. This was improved to 0.56 when we add word associations as candidates.

\section{Conclusions}

We have described a system that interprets nominal metaphors, provided without a context. Given a metaphor, we generate a set of interpretation candidates and rank them according to how strongly they are associated with the topic, as well as with the vehicle.  Candidates are generated using two techniques. First, we find collocations of the topic and  vehicle, focusing on adjectives as well as gerunds, which were found to be dependent of the topic/vehicle in at least one sentence in a large corpus. We add to that list word associations of both. This addition has proven effective.

Our ranking procedure combines a number of scores assigned for each candidate, which are based on normalized PMI as well as cosine similarity between the representing \textsf{GloVe} vectors of the candidates and the topic/vehicle collocations. The scores are aggregated using a weighted log-linear structure. We tune the weights automatically, optimizing for various evaluation metrics: MRR, MAP and Recall@$K$ for different $K$ values. We found that with small $K$, the similarity between  candidate and  topic becomes more important than  other score functions.

In a post-processing step, we cluster the results using DBSCAN and keep only the best candidates out of each cluster. The system benefits thereby.

Our system was evaluated against a set of metaphors that were assigned with properties by 20 human evaluators. We compare our results with Meta4meaning and obtained competitive results.
Overall, the system could not generate even one correct interpretation (among its 50 best results) for 20 out of the 76 evaluated metaphors. Some of those metaphors did not have a correct interpretation anywhere in the list, even beyond the best 50; for example, {\it music is a medicine}.

\bibliographystyle{plain}