We explore the link between the extent to which syntactic relations are preserved in translation and the ease of correctly constructing a parse tree in a zero-shot setting. While previous work suggests such a relation, it tends to focus on the macro
level and not on the level of individual edges---a gap we aim to address. As a test case, we take the transfer of Universal Dependencies (UD) parsing from English to a diverse set of languages and conduct two sets of experiments. In one, we analyze zero-shot performance based on the extent to which English source edges are preserved in translation. In another, we apply three linguistically motivated transformations to UD, creating more cross-lingually stable versions of it, and assess their zero-shot parsability. In order to compare parsing performance across different schemes, we perform extrinsic evaluation on the downstream task of cross-lingual relation extraction (RE) using a subset of a standard English RE benchmark translated to Russian and Korean. In both sets of experiments, our results suggest a strong relation between cross-lingual stability and zero-shot parsing performance.
While aggregate performance metrics can generate valuable insights at a large scale, their dominance means more complex and nuanced language phenomena, such as vagueness, may be overlooked. Focusing on vague terms (e.g. sunny, cloudy, young, etc.) we
inspect the behavior of visually grounded and text-only models, finding systematic divergences from human judgments even when a model's overall performance is high. To help explain this disparity, we identify two assumptions made by the datasets and models examined and, guided by the philosophy of vagueness, isolate cases where they do not hold.
Domain divergence plays a significant role in estimating the performance of a model in new domains. While there is a significant literature on divergence measures, researchers find it hard to choose an appropriate divergence for a given NLP applicati
on. We address this shortcoming by both surveying the literature and through an empirical study. We develop a taxonomy of divergence measures consisting of three classes --- Information-theoretic, Geometric, and Higher-order measures and identify the relationships between them. Further, to understand the common use-cases of these measures, we recognise three novel applications -- 1) Data Selection, 2) Learning Representation, and 3) Decisions in the Wild -- and use it to organise our literature. From this, we identify that Information-theoretic measures are prevalent for 1) and 3), and Higher-order measures are more common for 2). To further help researchers choose appropriate measures to predict drop in performance -- an important aspect of Decisions in the Wild, we perform correlation analysis spanning 130 domain adaptation scenarios, 3 varied NLP tasks and 12 divergence measures identified from our survey. To calculate these divergences, we consider the current contextual word representations (CWR) and contrast with the older distributed representations. We find that traditional measures over word distributions still serve as strong baselines, while higher-order measures with CWR are effective.
