Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userDoes Putting a Linguist in the Loop Improve NLU Data Collection?
هل يؤدي وضع لغوي في الحلقة إلى تحسين جمع البيانات NLU؟
396
0 0
0.0
(
0
)
Created by
Shamra Editor
Ask ChatGPT about the research
تحتوي العديد من مجموعات بيانات NLP الجماعية على القطع الأثرية المنهجية التي تم تحديدها فقط بعد اكتمال جمع البيانات. يجب أن يسهل تحديد الهوية السابقة من هذه القضايا إنشاء بيانات تدريبية وتقييم عالية الجودة. نحاول ذلك عن طريق تقييم البروتوكولات التي يعمل فيها اللغويين الخبراء في الحلقة "أثناء جمع البيانات لتحديد هذه المشكلات ومعالجتها عن طريق ضبط تعليمات المهام والحوافز. باستخدام الاستدلال اللغوي الطبيعي كحالة اختبار، قارن ثلاثة بروتوكولات جمع البيانات: (1) بروتوكول أساسي مع عدم وجود تورط لغوي، (2) تدخل لغوي في حلقة مع قيود محدثة بشكل متطور على مهمة الكتابة، و (3) تمديد يضيف التفاعل المباشر بين اللغويين والملائقيين عبر غرفة الدردشة. نجد أن المشاركة اللغوية لا تؤدي إلى زيادة الدقة على مجموعات اختبار خارج المجال مقارنة مع خط الأساس، وإضافة غرفة من الدردشة ليس لها تأثير على البيانات. ومع ذلك، فإن المشاركة اللغوية تؤدي إلى بيانات تقييم أكثر تحديا ودقة أعلى في بعض مجموعات التحدي، مما يدل على فوائد دمج تحليل الخبراء أثناء جمع البيانات.
Many crowdsourced NLP datasets contain systematic artifacts that are identified only after data collection is complete. Earlier identification of these issues should make it easier to create high-quality training and evaluation data. We attempt this by evaluating protocols in which expert linguists work in the loop' during data collection to identify and address these issues by adjusting task instructions and incentives. Using natural language inference as a test case, we compare three data collection protocols: (i) a baseline protocol with no linguist involvement, (ii) a linguist-in-the-loop intervention with iteratively-updated constraints on the writing task, and (iii) an extension that adds direct interaction between linguists and crowdworkers via a chatroom. We find that linguist involvement does not lead to increased accuracy on out-of-domain test sets compared to baseline, and adding a chatroom has no effect on the data. Linguist involvement does, however, lead to more challenging evaluation data and higher accuracy on some challenge sets, demonstrating the benefits of integrating expert analysis during data collection.
References used
https://aclanthology.org/
rate research
Read More
How can we design Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems that learn from human feedback? There is a growing research body of Human-in-the-loop (HITL) NLP frameworks that continuously integrate human feedback to improve the model itself. HITL NLP r
esearch is nascent but multifarious---solving various NLP problems, collecting diverse feedback from different people, and applying different methods to learn from human feedback. We present a survey of HITL NLP work from both Machine Learning (ML) and Human-computer Interaction (HCI) communities that highlights its short yet inspiring history, and thoroughly summarize recent frameworks focusing on their tasks, goals, human interactions, and feedback learning methods. Finally, we discuss future studies for integrating human feedback in the NLP development loop.
This survey/position paper discusses ways to improve coverage of resources such as WordNet. Rapp estimated correlations, rho, between corpus statistics and pyscholinguistic norms. rho improves with quantity (corpus size) and quality (balance). 1M wor
ds is enough for simple estimates (unigram frequencies), but at least 100x more is required for good estimates of word associations and embeddings. Given such estimates, WordNet's coverage is remarkable. WordNet was developed on SemCor, a small sample (200k words) from the Brown Corpus. Knowledge Graph Completion (KGC) attempts to learn missing links from subsets. But Rapp's estimates of sizes suggest it would be more profitable to collect more data than to infer missing information that is not there.
We present a comprehensive survey of available corpora for multi-party dialogue. We survey over 300 publications related to multi-party dialogue and catalogue all available corpora in a novel taxonomy. We analyze methods of data collection for multi-
party dialogue corpora and identify several lacunae in existing data collection approaches used to collect such dialogue. We present this survey, the first survey to focus exclusively on multi-party dialogue corpora, to motivate research in this area. Through our discussion of existing data collection methods, we identify desiderata and guiding principles for multi-party data collection to contribute further towards advancing this area of dialogue research.
Crowdsourcing from non-experts is one of the most common approaches to collecting data and annotations in NLP. Even though it is such a fundamental tool in NLP, crowdsourcing use is largely guided by common practices and the personal experience of re
searchers. Developing a theory of crowdsourcing use for practical language problems remains an open challenge. However, there are various principles and practices that have proven effective in generating high quality and diverse data. This tutorial exposes NLP researchers to such data collection crowdsourcing methods and principles through a detailed discussion of a diverse set of case studies. The selection of case studies focuses on challenging settings where crowdworkers are asked to write original text or otherwise perform relatively unconstrained work. Through these case studies, we discuss in detail processes that were carefully designed to achieve data with specific properties, for example to require logical inference, grounded reasoning or conversational understanding. Each case study focuses on data collection crowdsourcing protocol details that often receive limited attention in research presentations, for example in conferences, but are critical for research success.
Linguistic representations derived from text alone have been criticized for their lack of grounding, i.e., connecting words to their meanings in the physical world. Vision-and- Language (VL) models, trained jointly on text and image or video data, ha
ve been offered as a response to such criticisms. However, while VL pretraining has shown success on multimodal tasks such as visual question answering, it is not yet known how the internal linguistic representations themselves compare to their text-only counterparts. This paper compares the semantic representations learned via VL vs. text-only pretraining for two recent VL models using a suite of analyses (clustering, probing, and performance on a commonsense question answering task) in a language-only setting. We find that the multimodal models fail to significantly outperform the text-only variants, suggesting that future work is required if multimodal pretraining is to be pursued as a means of improving NLP in general.
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
