Understanding when a text snippet does not provide a sought after information is an essential part of natural language utnderstanding. Recent work (SQuAD 2.0; Rajpurkar et al., 2018) has attempted to make some progress in this direction by enriching
the SQuAD dataset for the Extractive QA task with unanswerable questions. However, as we show, the performance of a top system trained on SQuAD 2.0 drops considerably in out-of-domain scenarios, limiting its use in practical situations. In order to study this we build an out-of-domain corpus, focusing on simple event-based questions and distinguish between two types of IDK questions: competitive questions, where the context includes an entity of the same type as the expected answer, and simpler, non-competitive questions where there is no entity of the same type in the context. We find that SQuAD 2.0-based models fail even in the case of the simpler questions. We then analyze the similarities and differences between the IDK phenomenon in Extractive QA and the Recognizing Textual Entailments task (RTE; Dagan et al., 2013) and investigate the extent to which the latter can be used to improve the performance.
The Reading Machine, is a parsing framework that takes as input raw text and performs six standard nlp tasks: tokenization, pos tagging, morphological analysis, lemmatization, dependency parsing and sentence segmentation. It is built upon Transition
Based Parsing, and allows to implement a large number of parsing configurations, among which a fully incremental one. Three case studies are presented to highlight the versatility of the framework. The first one explores whether an incremental parser is able to take into account top-down dependencies (i.e. the influence of high level decisions on low level ones), the second compares the performances of an incremental and a pipe-line architecture and the third quantifies the impact of the right context on the predictions made by an incremental parser.
Understanding how linguistic structure is encoded in contextualized embedding could help explain their impressive performance across NLP. Existing approaches for probing them usually call for training classifiers and use the accuracy, mutual informat
ion, or complexity as a proxy for the representation's goodness. In this work, we argue that doing so can be unreliable because different representations may need different classifiers. We develop a heuristic, DirectProbe, that directly studies the geometry of a representation by building upon the notion of a version space for a task. Experiments with several linguistic tasks and contextualized embeddings show that, even without training classifiers, DirectProbe can shine lights on how an embedding space represents labels and also anticipate the classifier performance for the representation.
