Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userBLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English
296
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Alex Warstadt
Publication date
2019
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We introduce The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs (shortened to BLiMP), a challenge set for evaluating what language models (LMs) know about major grammatical phenomena in English. BLiMP consists of 67 sub-datasets, each containing 1000 minimal pairs isolating specific contrasts in syntax, morphology, or semantics. The data is automatically generated according to expert-crafted grammars, and aggregate human agreement with the labels is 96.4%. We use it to evaluate n-gram, LSTM, and Transformer (GPT-2 and Transformer-XL) LMs. We find that state-of-the-art models identify morphological contrasts reliably, but they struggle with semantic restrictions on the distribution of quantifiers and negative polarity items and subtle syntactic phenomena such as extraction islands.
rate research
Read More
Recent trends in NLP research have raised an interest in linguistic code-switching (CS); modern approaches have been proposed to solve a wide range of NLP tasks on multiple language pairs. Unfortunately, these proposed methods are hardly generalizable to different code-switched languages. In addition, it is unclear whether a model architecture is applicable for a different task while still being compatible with the code-switching setting. This is mainly because of the lack of a centralized benchmark and the sparse corpora that researchers employ based on their specific needs and interests. To facilitate research in this direction, we propose a centralized benchmark for Linguistic Code-switching Evaluation (LinCE) that combines ten corpora covering four different code-switched language pairs (i.e., Spanish-English, Nepali-English, Hindi-English, and Modern Standard Arabic-Egyptian Arabic) and four tasks (i.e., language identification, named entity recognition, part-of-speech tagging, and sentiment analysis). As part of the benchmark centralization effort, we provide an online platform at ritual.uh.edu/lince, where researchers can submit their results while comparing with others in real-time. In addition, we provide the scores of different popular models, including LSTM, ELMo, and multilingual BERT so that the NLP community can compare against state-of-the-art systems. LinCE is a continuous effort, and we will expand it with more low-resource languages and tasks.
Minimal sentence pairs are frequently used to analyze the behavior of language models. It is often assumed that model behavior on contrastive pairs is predictive of model behavior at large. We argue that two conditions are necessary for this assumption to hold: First, a tested hypothesis should be well-motivated, since experiments show that contrastive evaluation can lead to false positives. Secondly, test data should be chosen such as to minimize distributional discrepancy between evaluation time and deployment time. For a good approximation of deployment-time decoding, we recommend that minimal pairs are created based on machine-generated text, as opposed to human-written references. We present a contrastive evaluation suite for English-German MT that implements this recommendation.
Transformer-based language models achieve high performance on various tasks, but we still lack understanding of the kind of linguistic knowledge they learn and rely on. We evaluate three models (BERT, RoBERTa, and ALBERT), testing their grammatical and semantic knowledge by sentence-level probing, diagnostic cases, and masked prediction tasks. We focus on relative clauses (in American English) as a complex phenomenon needing contextual information and antecedent identification to be resolved. Based on a naturalistic dataset, probing shows that all three models indeed capture linguistic knowledge about grammaticality, achieving high performance. Evaluation on diagnostic cases and masked prediction tasks considering fine-grained linguistic knowledge, however, shows pronounced model-specific weaknesses especially on semantic knowledge, strongly impacting models performance. Our results highlight the importance of (a)model comparison in evaluation task and (b) building up claims of model performance and the linguistic knowledge they capture beyond purely probing-based evaluations.
The success of neural networks on a diverse set of NLP tasks has led researchers to question how much these networks actually ``know about natural language. Probes are a natural way of assessing this. When probing, a researcher chooses a linguistic task and trains a supervised model to predict annotations in that linguistic task from the networks learned representations. If the probe does well, the researcher may conclude that the representations encode knowledge related to the task. A commonly held belief is that using simpler models as probes is better; the logic is that simpler models will identify linguistic structure, but not learn the task itself. We propose an information-theoretic operationalization of probing as estimating mutual information that contradicts this received wisdom: one should always select the highest performing probe one can, even if it is more complex, since it will result in a tighter estimate, and thus reveal more of the linguistic information inherent in the representation. The experimental portion of our paper focuses on empirically estimating the mutual information between a linguistic property and BERT, comparing these estimates to several baselines. We evaluate on a set of ten typologically diverse languages often underrepresented in NLP research---plus English---totalling eleven languages.
Distinguishing between arguments and adjuncts of a verb is a longstanding, nontrivial problem. In natural language processing, argumenthood information is important in tasks such as semantic role labeling (SRL) and prepositional phrase (PP) attachment disambiguation. In theoretical linguistics, many diagnostic tests for argumenthood exist but they often yield conflicting and potentially gradient results. This is especially the case for syntactically oblique items such as PPs. We propose two PP argumenthood prediction tasks branching from these two motivations: (1) binary argument-adjunct classification of PPs in VerbNet, and (2) gradient argumenthood prediction using human judgments as gold standard, and report results from prediction models that use pretrained word embeddings and other linguistically informed features. Our best results on each task are (1) $acc.=0.955$, $F_1=0.954$ (ELMo+BiLSTM) and (2) Pearsons $r=0.624$ (word2vec+MLP). Furthermore, we demonstrate the utility of argumenthood prediction in improving sentence representations via performance gains on SRL when a sentence encoder is pretrained with our tasks.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
