Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userWhat do character-level models learn about morphology? The case of dependency parsing
341
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Clara Vania
Publication date
2018
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
When parsing morphologically-rich languages with neural models, it is beneficial to model input at the character level, and it has been claimed that this is because character-level models learn morphology. We test these claims by comparing character-level models to an oracle with access to explicit morphological analysis on twelve languages with varying morphological typologies. Our results highlight many strengths of character-level models, but also show that they are poor at disambiguating some words, particularly in the face of case syncretism. We then demonstrate that explicitly modeling morphological case improves our best model, showing that character-level models can benefit from targeted forms of explicit morphological modeling.
rate research
Read More
Deep convolutional neural networks learn extremely powerful image representations, yet most of that power is hidden in the millions of deep-layer parameters. What exactly do these parameters represent? Recent work has started to analyse CNN representations, finding that, e.g., they are invariant to some 2D transformations Fischer et al. (2014), but are confused by particular types of image noise Nguyen et al. (2014). In this work, we delve deeper and ask: how invariant are CNNs to object-class variations caused by 3D shape, pose, and photorealism?
In this paper, we present an approach to improve the accuracy of a strong transition-based dependency parser by exploiting dependency language models that are extracted from a large parsed corpus. We integrated a small number of features based on the dependency language models into the parser. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, we evaluate our parser on standard English and Chinese data where the base parser could achieve competitive accuracy scores. Our enhanced parser achieved state-of-the-art accuracy on Chinese data and competitive results on English data. We gained a large absolute improvement of one point (UAS) on Chinese and 0.5 points for English.
In this paper, we study the problem of parsing structured knowledge graphs from textual descriptions. In particular, we consider the scene graph representation that considers objects together with their attributes and relations: this representation has been proved useful across a variety of vision and language applications. We begin by introducing an alternative but equivalent edge-centric view of scene graphs that connect to dependency parses. Together with a careful redesign of label and action space, we combine the two-stage pipeline used in prior work (generic dependency parsing followed by simple post-processing) into one, enabling end-to-end training. The scene graphs generated by our learned neural dependency parser achieve an F-score similarity of 49.67% to ground truth graphs on our evaluation set, surpassing best previous approaches by 5%. We further demonstrate the effectiveness of our learned parser on image retrieval applications.
In contrast to their word- or sentence-level counterparts, character embeddings are still poorly understood. We aim at closing this gap with an in-depth study of English character embeddings. For this, we use resources from research on grapheme-color synesthesia -- a neuropsychological phenomenon where letters are associated with colors, which give us insight into which characters are similar for synesthetes and how characters are organized in color space. Comparing 10 different character embeddings, we ask: How similar are character embeddings to a synesthetes perception of characters? And how similar are character embeddings extracted from different models? We find that LSTMs agree with humans more than transformers. Comparing across tasks, grapheme-to-phoneme conversion results in the most human-like character embeddings. Finally, ELMo embeddings differ from both humans and other models.
As the numbers of submissions to conferences grow quickly, the task of assessing the quality of academic papers automatically, convincingly, and with high accuracy attracts increasing attention. We argue that studying interpretable dimensions of these submissions could lead to scalable solutions. We extract a collection of writing features, and construct a suite of prediction tasks to assess the usefulness of these features in predicting citation counts and the publication of AI-related papers. Depending on the venues, the writing features can predict the conference vs. workshop appearance with F1 scores up to 60-90, sometimes even outperforming the content-based tf-idf features and RoBERTa. We show that the features describe writing style more than content. To further understand the results, we estimate the causal impact of the most indicative features. Our analysis on writing features provides a perspective to assessing and refining the writing of academic articles at scale.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
