Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userA Modest Pareto Optimisation Analysis of Dependency Parsers in 2021
تحليل تحسين باريتو متواضع لمحلل التبعية في عام 2021
114
0 0
0.0
(
0
)
Created by
Shamra Editor
Ask ChatGPT about the research
نقيم ثلاثة أنظمة محلل التبعية الرائدة من النماذج المختلفة في مجموعة فرعية صغيرة متناثرة من اللغات من حيث أمامي باريتو الكفاءة من دقتها.نظرا لأننا مهتمون بالكفاءة، فإننا نقيم المحللين الأساسيين دون نماذج لغة محددة (لأن هذه شبكات ضخمة وعادة ما تشكل معظم الوقت لحساب الوقت) أو غيرها من التعزيزات التي يمكن تطبيقها على أي منهم.تظهر تحليل BiAffine كاختيار افتراضي متوازن، مع تحليل وضع العلامات على التسلسل هو الأفضل إذا كانت سرعة الاستدلال (ولكن لا تكلفة الطاقة التدريبية) هي الأولوية.
We evaluate three leading dependency parser systems from different paradigms on a small yet diverse subset of languages in terms of their accuracy-efficiency Pareto front. As we are interested in efficiency, we evaluate core parsers without pretrained language models (as these are typically huge networks and would constitute most of the compute time) or other augmentations that can be transversally applied to any of them. Biaffine parsing emerges as a well-balanced default choice, with sequence-labelling parsing being preferable if inference speed (but not training energy cost) is the priority.
References used
https://aclanthology.org/
rate research
Read More
MeasEval aims at identifying quantities along with the entities that are measured with additional properties within English scientific documents. The variety of styles used makes measurements, a most crucial aspect of scientific writing, challenging
to extract. This paper presents ablation studies making the case for several preprocessing steps such as specialized tokenization rules. For linguistic structure, we encode dependency trees in a Deep Graph Convolution Network (DGCNN) for multi-task classification.
We describe the DCU-EPFL submission to the IWPT 2021 Parsing Shared Task: From Raw Text to Enhanced Universal Dependencies. The task involves parsing Enhanced UD graphs, which are an extension of the basic dependency trees designed to be more facilit
ative towards representing semantic structure. Evaluation is carried out on 29 treebanks in 17 languages and participants are required to parse the data from each language starting from raw strings. Our approach uses the Stanza pipeline to preprocess the text files, XLM-RoBERTa to obtain contextualized token representations, and an edge-scoring and labeling model to predict the enhanced graph. Finally, we run a postprocessing script to ensure all of our outputs are valid Enhanced UD graphs. Our system places 6th out of 9 participants with a coarse Enhanced Labeled Attachment Score (ELAS) of 83.57. We carry out additional post-deadline experiments which include using Trankit for pre-processing, XLM-RoBERTa LARGE, treebank concatenation, and multitask learning between a basic and an enhanced dependency parser. All of these modifications improve our initial score and our final system has a coarse ELAS of 88.04.
Accurate recovery of predicate-argument structure from a Universal Dependency (UD) parse is central to downstream tasks such as extraction of semantic roles or event representations. This study introduces compchains, a categorization of the hierarchy
of predicate dependency relations present within a UD parse. Accuracy of compchain classification serves as a proxy for measuring accurate recovery of predicate-argument structure from sentences with embedding. We analyzed the distribution of compchains in three UD English treebanks, EWT, GUM and LinES, revealing that these treebanks are sparse with respect to sentences with predicate-argument structure that includes predicate-argument embedding. We evaluated the CoNLL 2018 Shared Task UDPipe (v1.2) baseline (dependency parsing) models as compchain classifiers for the EWT, GUMS and LinES UD treebanks. Our results indicate that these three baseline models exhibit poorer performance on sentences with predicate-argument structure with more than one level of embedding; we used compchains to characterize the errors made by these parsers and present examples of erroneous parses produced by the parser that were identified using compchains. We also analyzed the distribution of compchains in 58 non-English UD treebanks and then used compchains to evaluate the CoNLL'18 Shared Task baseline model for each of these treebanks. Our analysis shows that performance with respect to compchain classification is only weakly correlated with the official evaluation metrics (LAS, MLAS and BLEX). We identify gaps in the distribution of compchains in several of the UD treebanks, thus providing a roadmap for how these treebanks may be supplemented. We conclude by discussing how compchains provide a new perspective on the sparsity of training data for UD parsers, as well as the accuracy of the resulting UD parses.
Abstract Interpretable rationales for model predictions are crucial in practical applications. We develop neural models that possess an interpretable inference process for dependency parsing. Our models adopt instance-based inference, where dependenc
y edges are extracted and labeled by comparing them to edges in a training set. The training edges are explicitly used for the predictions; thus, it is easy to grasp the contribution of each edge to the predictions. Our experiments show that our instance-based models achieve competitive accuracy with standard neural models and have the reasonable plausibility of instance-based explanations.
This paper describes the Duluth system that participated in SemEval-2021 Task 11, NLP Contribution Graph. It details the extraction of contribution sentences and scientific entities and their relations from scholarly articles in the domain of Natural
Language Processing. Our solution uses deBERTa for multi-class sentence classification to extract the contributing sentences and their type, and dependency parsing to outline each sentence and extract subject-predicate-object triples. Our system ranked fifth of seven for Phase 1: end-to-end pipeline, sixth of eight for Phase 2 Part 1: phrases and triples, and fifth of eight for Phase 2 Part 2: triples extraction.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
