Findings of the SIGMORPHON 2021 Shared Task on Unsupervised Morphological Paradigm Clustering

We describe the second SIGMORPHON shared task on unsupervised morphology: the goal of the SIGMORPHON 2021 Shared Task on Unsupervised Morphological Paradigm Clustering is to cluster word types from a raw text corpus into paradigms. To this end, we release corpora for 5 development and 9 test languages, as well as gold partial paradigms for evaluation. We receive 14 submissions from 4 teams that follow different strategies, and the best performing system is based on adaptor grammars. Results vary significantly across languages. However, all systems are outperformed by a supervised lemmatizer, implying that there is still room for improvement.

Adaptor Grammars for Unsupervised Paradigm Clustering

This work describes the Edinburgh submission to the SIGMORPHON 2021 Shared Task 2 on unsupervised morphological paradigm clustering. Given raw text input, the task was to assign each token to a cluster with other tokens from the same paradigm. We use Adaptor Grammar segmentations combined with frequency-based heuristics to predict paradigm clusters. Our system achieved the highest average F1 score across 9 test languages, placing first out of 15 submissions.

Orthographic vs. Semantic Representations for Unsupervised Morphological Paradigm Clustering

This paper presents two different systems for unsupervised clustering of morphological paradigms, in the context of the SIGMORPHON 2021 Shared Task 2. The goal of this task is to correctly cluster words in a given language by their inflectional paradigm, without any previous knowledge of the language and without supervision from labeled data of any sort. The words in a single morphological paradigm are different inflectional variants of an underlying lemma, meaning that the words share a common core meaning. They also - usually - show a high degree of orthographical similarity. Following these intuitions, we investigate KMeans clustering using two different types of word representations: one focusing on orthographical similarity and the other focusing on semantic similarity.Additionally, we discuss the merits of randomly initialized centroids versus pre-defined centroids for clustering. Pre-defined centroids are identified based on either a standard longest common substring algorithm or a connected graph method built off of longest common substring. For all development languages, the character-based embeddings perform similarly to the baseline, and the semantic embeddings perform well below the baseline.Analysis of the systems' errors suggests that clustering based on orthographic representations is suitable for a wide range of morphological mechanisms, particularly as part of a larger system.

Schema-Guided Paradigm for Zero-Shot Dialog

Developing mechanisms that flexibly adapt dialog systems to unseen tasks and domains is a major challenge in dialog research. Neural models implicitly memorize task-specific dialog policies from the training data. We posit that this implicit memorization has precluded zero-shot transfer learning. To this end, we leverage the schema-guided paradigm, wherein the task-specific dialog policy is explicitly provided to the model. We introduce the Schema Attention Model (SAM) and improved schema representations for the STAR corpus. SAM obtains significant improvement in zero-shot settings, with a +22 F1 score improvement over prior work. These results validate the feasibility of zero-shot generalizability in dialog. Ablation experiments are also presented to demonstrate the efficacy of SAM.

The Popper - Kuhn Debate Reexamined

The nature of scientific progress and the rationality of scientific change lie at the centre of Karl Popper’s and Thomas Kuhn’s thought. This paper provides an analysis of the Popper - Kuhn debate over those issues; according to which, Kuhn is portrayed as subjectivist and relativist, while Popper emerges as objectivist and realist. The paper is divided into three parts. Popper’s claims regarding scientific progress and rationality are examined in Part One. It is argued that Popper’s philosophy is inherently value-driven, while defending the objective characteristics of scientific truth. Part Two explores Kuhn’s conception of science, of the rationality of science and scientific progress. Kuhn argued that knowledge is relative only to the accepted paradigm. Part Three is taken up with a comparative discussion of the main issues related to the Kuhn - Popper debate.