Datasets:

irenepap

/

qasper

like 0

[ "No" ]

[ [] ]

[ "Use an existing one" ]

[ [ "For our experiments, we select a dataset whose utterances have been correctly synchronised at recording time. This allows us to control how the model is trained and verify its performance using ground truth synchronisation offsets. We use UltraSuite: a repository of ultrasound and acoustic data gathered from child speech therapy sessions BIBREF15 . We used all three datasets from the repository: UXTD (recorded with typically developing children), and UXSSD and UPX (recorded with children with speech sound disorders). In total, the dataset contains 13,815 spoken utterances from 86 speakers, corresponding to 35.9 hours of recordings. The utterances have been categorised by the type of task the child was given, and are labelled as: Words (A), Non-words (B), Sentence (C), Articulatory (D), Non-speech (E), or Conversations (F). See BIBREF15 for details." ] ]

[ "Yes" ]

[ [ "Given a pair of ultrasound and audio segments we can calculate the distance between them using our model. To predict the synchronisation offset for an utterance, we consider a discretised set of candidate offsets, calculate the average distance for each across utterance segments, and select the one with the minimum average distance. The candidate set is independent of the model, and is chosen based on task knowledge (Section SECREF5 )." ] ]

[ "CNN" ]

[ [ "We adopt the approach in BIBREF4 , modifying it to synchronise audio with UTI data. Our model, UltraSync, consists of two streams: the first takes as input a short segment of ultrasound and the second takes as input the corresponding audio. Both inputs are high-dimensional and are of different sizes. The objective is to learn a mapping from the inputs to a pair of low-dimensional vectors of the same length, such that the Euclidean distance between the two vectors is small when they correlate and large otherwise BIBREF21 , BIBREF22 . This model can be viewed as an extension of a siamese neural network BIBREF23 but with two asymmetrical streams and no shared parameters. Figure FIGREF1 illustrates the main architecture. The visual data INLINEFORM0 (ultrasound) and audio data INLINEFORM1 (MFCC), which have different shapes, are mapped to low dimensional embeddings INLINEFORM2 (visual) and INLINEFORM3 (audio) of the same size: DISPLAYFORM0" ] ]

[ "apply an ensemble of deep learning and linguistics t" ]

[ [ "Most of the previous works in aspect term extraction have either used conditional random fields (CRFs) BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 or linguistic patterns BIBREF7 , BIBREF11 . Both of these approaches have their own limitations: CRF is a linear model, so it needs a large number of features to work well; linguistic patterns need to be crafted by hand, and they crucially depend on the grammatical accuracy of the sentences. In this chapter, we apply an ensemble of deep learning and linguistics to tackle both the problem of aspect extraction and subjectivity detection." ] ]

[ "MUC, CoNLL, ACE, OntoNotes, MSM, Ritter, UMBC" ]

[ [ "Since the goal of this study is to compare NER performance on corpora from diverse domains and genres, seven benchmark NER corpora are included, spanning newswire, broadcast conversation, Web content, and social media (see Table 1 for details). These datasets were chosen such that they have been annotated with the same or very similar entity classes, in particular, names of people, locations, and organisations. Thus corpora including only domain-specific entities (e.g. biomedical corpora) were excluded. The choice of corpora was also motivated by their chronological age; we wanted to ensure a good temporal spread, in order to study possible effects of entity drift over time." ] ]

[ "1000 hours of WSJ audio data" ]

[ [ "We consider pre-training on the audio data (without labels) of WSJ, part of clean Librispeech (about 80h) and full Librispeech as well as a combination of all datasets (§ SECREF7 ). For the pre-training experiments we feed the output of the context network to the acoustic model, instead of log-mel filterbank features.", "Our experimental results on the WSJ benchmark demonstrate that pre-trained representations estimated on about 1,000 hours of unlabeled speech can substantially improve a character-based ASR system and outperform the best character-based result in the literature, Deep Speech 2. On the TIMIT task, pre-training enables us to match the best reported result in the literature. In a simulated low-resource setup with only eight hours of transcriped audio data, reduces WER by up to 32% compared to a baseline model that relies on labeled data only (§ SECREF3 & § SECREF4 )." ] ]

[ "wav2vec has 12 convolutional layers" ]

[ [ "Given raw audio samples INLINEFORM0 , we apply the encoder network INLINEFORM1 which we parameterize as a five-layer convolutional network similar to BIBREF15 . Alternatively, one could use other architectures such as the trainable frontend of BIBREF24 amongst others. The encoder layers have kernel sizes INLINEFORM2 and strides INLINEFORM3 . The output of the encoder is a low frequency feature representation INLINEFORM4 which encodes about 30ms of 16KHz of audio and the striding results in representation INLINEFORM5 every 10ms.", "Next, we apply the context network INLINEFORM0 to the output of the encoder network to mix multiple latent representations INLINEFORM1 into a single contextualized tensor INLINEFORM2 for a receptive field size INLINEFORM3 . The context network has seven layers and each layer has kernel size three and stride one. The total receptive field of the context network is about 180ms." ] ]

[ "Yes" ]

[ [ "What is the impact of pre-trained representations with less transcribed data? In order to get a better understanding of this, we train acoustic models with different amounts of labeled training data and measure accuracy with and without pre-trained representations (log-mel filterbanks). The pre-trained representations are trained on the full Librispeech corpus and we measure accuracy in terms of WER when decoding with a 4-gram language model. Figure shows that pre-training reduces WER by 32% on nov93dev when only about eight hours of transcribed data is available. Pre-training only on the audio data of WSJ ( WSJ) performs worse compared to the much larger Librispeech ( Libri). This further confirms that pre-training on more data is crucial to good performance." ] ]

[ "shared character embeddings for taggers in both languages together through optimization of a joint loss function" ]

[ [ "Our formulation of transfer learning builds on work in multi-task learning BIBREF15 , BIBREF9 . We treat each individual language as a task and train a joint model for all the tasks. We first discuss the current state of the art in morphological tagging: a character-level recurrent neural network. After that, we explore three augmentations to the architecture that allow for the transfer learning scenario. All of our proposals force the embedding of the characters for both the source and the target language to share the same vector space, but involve different mechanisms, by which the model may learn language-specific features.", "Cross-lingual morphological tagging may be formulated as a multi-task learning problem. We seek to learn a set of shared character embeddings for taggers in both languages together through optimization of a joint loss function that combines the high-resource tagger and the low-resource one. The first loss function we consider is the following:" ] ]

[ "We use the morphological tagging datasets provided by the Universal Dependencies (UD) treebanks (the concatenation of the $4^\\text{th}$ and $6^\\text{th}$ columns of the file format) BIBREF13 . " ]

[ [ "We use the morphological tagging datasets provided by the Universal Dependencies (UD) treebanks (the concatenation of the $4^\\text{th}$ and $6^\\text{th}$ columns of the file format) BIBREF13 . We list the size of the training, development and test splits of the UD treebanks we used in tab:lang-size. Also, we list the number of unique morphological tags in each language in tab:num-tags, which serves as an approximate measure of the morphological complexity each language exhibits. Crucially, the data are annotated in a cross-linguistically consistent manner, such that words in the different languages that have the same syntacto-semantic function have the same bundle of tags (see sec:morpho-tagging for a discussion). Potentially, further gains would be possible by using a more universal scheme, e.g., the UniMorph scheme." ] ]

[ "Yes" ]

[ [ "First we compare our neural network English RE models with the state-of-the-art RE models on the ACE05 English data. The ACE05 English data can be divided to 6 different domains: broadcast conversation (bc), broadcast news (bn), telephone conversation (cts), newswire (nw), usenet (un) and webblogs (wl). We apply the same data split in BIBREF31, BIBREF30, BIBREF6, which uses news (the union of bn and nw) as the training set, a half of bc as the development set and the remaining data as the test set.", "We learn the model parameters using Adam BIBREF32. We apply dropout BIBREF33 to the hidden layers to reduce overfitting. The development set is used for tuning the model hyperparameters and for early stopping.", "We apply model ensemble to further improve the accuracy of the Bi-LSTM model. We train 5 Bi-LSTM English RE models initiated with different random seeds, apply the 5 models on the target languages, and combine the outputs by selecting the relation type labels with the highest probabilities among the 5 models. This Ensemble approach improves the single model by 0.6-1.9 $F_1$ points, except for Arabic." ] ]

[ "In-house dataset consists of 3716 documents \nACE05 dataset consists of 1635 documents" ]

[ [ "Our in-house dataset includes manually annotated RE data for 6 languages: English, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese and Portuguese. It defines 56 entity types (e.g., Person, Organization, Geo-Political Entity, Location, Facility, Time, Event_Violence, etc.) and 53 relation types between the entities (e.g., AgentOf, LocatedAt, PartOf, TimeOf, AffectedBy, etc.).", "The ACE05 dataset includes manually annotated RE data for 3 languages: English, Arabic and Chinese. It defines 7 entity types (Person, Organization, Geo-Political Entity, Location, Facility, Weapon, Vehicle) and 6 relation types between the entities (Agent-Artifact, General-Affiliation, ORG-Affiliation, Part-Whole, Personal-Social, Physical)." ] ]

[ "English, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese and Portuguese, English, Arabic and Chinese" ]

[ [ "Our in-house dataset includes manually annotated RE data for 6 languages: English, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese and Portuguese. It defines 56 entity types (e.g., Person, Organization, Geo-Political Entity, Location, Facility, Time, Event_Violence, etc.) and 53 relation types between the entities (e.g., AgentOf, LocatedAt, PartOf, TimeOf, AffectedBy, etc.).", "The ACE05 dataset includes manually annotated RE data for 3 languages: English, Arabic and Chinese. It defines 7 entity types (Person, Organization, Geo-Political Entity, Location, Facility, Weapon, Vehicle) and 6 relation types between the entities (Agent-Artifact, General-Affiliation, ORG-Affiliation, Part-Whole, Personal-Social, Physical)." ] ]

[ "in-house dataset, ACE05 dataset " ]

[ [ "Our in-house dataset includes manually annotated RE data for 6 languages: English, German, Spanish, Italian, Japanese and Portuguese. It defines 56 entity types (e.g., Person, Organization, Geo-Political Entity, Location, Facility, Time, Event_Violence, etc.) and 53 relation types between the entities (e.g., AgentOf, LocatedAt, PartOf, TimeOf, AffectedBy, etc.).", "The ACE05 dataset includes manually annotated RE data for 3 languages: English, Arabic and Chinese. It defines 7 entity types (Person, Organization, Geo-Political Entity, Location, Facility, Weapon, Vehicle) and 6 relation types between the entities (Agent-Artifact, General-Affiliation, ORG-Affiliation, Part-Whole, Personal-Social, Physical).", "In this section, we evaluate the performance of the proposed cross-lingual RE approach on both in-house dataset and the ACE (Automatic Content Extraction) 2005 multilingual dataset BIBREF11." ] ]

[ "Unanswerable" ]

[ [] ]

[ "16k images and 740k corresponding region descriptions" ]

[ [ "For training, we aggregated (query, image) pairs using the region descriptions from the VG dataset and referring expressions from the ReferIt dataset. Our VG training set consists of 85% of the data: 16k images and 740k corresponding region descriptions. The Referit training data consists of 9k images and 54k referring expressions." ] ]

[ "we replace user embeddings with a low-dimensional image representation" ]

[ [ "To adapt the FactorCell BIBREF4 for our purposes, we replace user embeddings with a low-dimensional image representation. Thus, we are able to modify each query completion to be personalized to a specific image representation. We extract features from an input image using a CNN pretrained on ImageNet, retraining only the last two fully connected layers. The image feature vector is fed into the FactorCell through the adaptation matrix. We perform beam search over the sequence of predicted characters to chose the optimal completion for the given prefix." ] ]

[ "No" ]

[ [ "This work also contributes a new dataset of INLINEFORM0 pairs of free-form natural language instructions and high-level navigation plans. This dataset was collected through Mechanical Turk using 100 simulated environments with a corresponding topological map and, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first of its kind for behavioral navigation. The dataset opens up opportunities to explore data-driven methods for grounding navigation commands into high-level motion plans.", "While the dataset was collected with simulated environments, no structure was imposed on the navigation instructions while crowd-sourcing data. Thus, many instructions in our dataset are ambiguous. Moreover, the order of the behaviors in the instructions is not always the same. For instance, a person said “turn right and advance” to describe part of a route, while another person said “go straight after turning right” in a similar situation. The high variability present in the natural language descriptions of our dataset makes the problem of decoding instructions into behaviors not trivial. See Appendix A of the supplementary material for additional details on our data collection effort." ] ]

[ "increasing accuracy by 35% and 25% in comparison to the Baseline and Ablation models, respectively, over INLINEFORM0 increase in EM and GM between our model and the next best two models" ]

[ [ "First, we can observe that the final model “Ours with Mask and Ordered Triplets” outperforms the Baseline and Ablation models on all metrics in previously seen environments. The difference in performance is particularly evident for the Exact Match and Goal Match metrics, with our model increasing accuracy by 35% and 25% in comparison to the Baseline and Ablation models, respectively. These results suggest that providing the behavioral navigation graph to the model and allowing it to process this information as a knowledge base in an end-to-end fashion is beneficial.", "Lastly, it is worth noting that our proposed model (last row of Table TABREF28 ) outperforms all other models in previously seen environments. In particular, we obtain over INLINEFORM0 increase in EM and GM between our model and the next best two models." ] ]

[ "the baseline where path generation uses a standard sequence-to-sequence model augmented with attention mechanism and path verification uses depth-first search" ]

[ [ "The baseline approach is based on BIBREF20 . It divides the task of interpreting commands for behavioral navigation into two steps: path generation, and path verification. For path generation, this baseline uses a standard sequence-to-sequence model augmented with an attention mechanism, similar to BIBREF23 , BIBREF6 . For path verification, the baseline uses depth-first search to find a route in the graph that matches the sequence of predicted behaviors. If no route matches perfectly, the baseline changes up to three behaviors in the predicted sequence to try to turn it into a valid path." ] ]

[ "For test-repeated set, EM score of 61.17, F1 of 93.54, ED of 0.75 and GM of 61.36. For test-new set, EM score of 41.71, F1 of 91.02, ED of 1.22 and GM of 41.81" ]

[ [] ]

[ "exact match, f1 score, edit distance and goal match" ]

[ [ "We compare the performance of translation approaches based on four metrics:", "[align=left,leftmargin=0em,labelsep=0.4em,font=]", "As in BIBREF20 , EM is 1 if a predicted plan matches exactly the ground truth; otherwise it is 0.", "The harmonic average of the precision and recall over all the test set BIBREF26 .", "The minimum number of insertions, deletions or swap operations required to transform a predicted sequence of behaviors into the ground truth sequence BIBREF27 .", "GM is 1 if a predicted plan reaches the ground truth destination (even if the full sequence of behaviors does not match exactly the ground truth). Otherwise, GM is 0." ] ]

[ "Yes" ]

[ [ "This work also contributes a new dataset of INLINEFORM0 pairs of free-form natural language instructions and high-level navigation plans. This dataset was collected through Mechanical Turk using 100 simulated environments with a corresponding topological map and, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first of its kind for behavioral navigation. The dataset opens up opportunities to explore data-driven methods for grounding navigation commands into high-level motion plans." ] ]

[ "using Amazon Mechanical Turk using simulated environments with topological maps" ]

[ [ "This work also contributes a new dataset of INLINEFORM0 pairs of free-form natural language instructions and high-level navigation plans. This dataset was collected through Mechanical Turk using 100 simulated environments with a corresponding topological map and, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first of its kind for behavioral navigation. The dataset opens up opportunities to explore data-driven methods for grounding navigation commands into high-level motion plans.", "We created a new dataset for the problem of following navigation instructions under the behavioral navigation framework of BIBREF5 . This dataset was created using Amazon Mechanical Turk and 100 maps of simulated indoor environments, each with 6 to 65 rooms. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first benchmark for comparing translation models in the context of behavioral robot navigation.", "As shown in Table TABREF16 , the dataset consists of 8066 pairs of free-form natural language instructions and navigation plans for training. This training data was collected from 88 unique simulated environments, totaling 6064 distinct navigation plans (2002 plans have two different navigation instructions each; the rest has one). The dataset contains two test set variants:", "While the dataset was collected with simulated environments, no structure was imposed on the navigation instructions while crowd-sourcing data. Thus, many instructions in our dataset are ambiguous. Moreover, the order of the behaviors in the instructions is not always the same. For instance, a person said “turn right and advance” to describe part of a route, while another person said “go straight after turning right” in a similar situation. The high variability present in the natural language descriptions of our dataset makes the problem of decoding instructions into behaviors not trivial. See Appendix A of the supplementary material for additional details on our data collection effort." ] ]

[ "english language" ]

[ [ "While the dataset was collected with simulated environments, no structure was imposed on the navigation instructions while crowd-sourcing data. Thus, many instructions in our dataset are ambiguous. Moreover, the order of the behaviors in the instructions is not always the same. For instance, a person said “turn right and advance” to describe part of a route, while another person said “go straight after turning right” in a similar situation. The high variability present in the natural language descriptions of our dataset makes the problem of decoding instructions into behaviors not trivial. See Appendix A of the supplementary material for additional details on our data collection effort." ] ]

[ "distinguishing between clinically positive and negative phenomena within each risk factor domain and accounting for structured data collected on the target cohort" ]

[ [ "Our current feature set for training a machine learning classifier is relatively small, consisting of paragraph domain scores, bag-of-words, length of stay, and number of previous admissions, but we intend to factor in many additional features that extend beyond the scope of the present study. These include a deeper analysis of clinical narratives in EHRs: our next task will be to extend our EHR data pipeline by distinguishing between clinically positive and negative phenomena within each risk factor domain. This will involve a series of annotation tasks that will allow us to generate lexicon-based and corpus-based sentiment analysis tools. We can then use these clinical sentiment scores to generate a gradient of patient improvement or deterioration over time." ] ]

[ "Achieved the highest per-domain scores on Substance (F1 ≈ 0.8) and the lowest scores on Interpersonal and Mood (F1 ≈ 0.5), and show consistency in per-domain performance rankings between MLP and RBF models." ]

[ [] ]

[ " a corpus of discharge summaries, admission notes, individual encounter notes, and other clinical notes from 220 patients in the OnTrackTM program at McLean Hospital, an additional data set for training our vector space model, comprised of EHR texts queried from the Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR)" ]

[ [ "Our target data set consists of a corpus of discharge summaries, admission notes, individual encounter notes, and other clinical notes from 220 patients in the OnTrackTM program at McLean Hospital. OnTrackTM is an outpatient program, focusing on treating adults ages 18 to 30 who are experiencing their first episodes of psychosis. The length of time in the program varies depending on patient improvement and insurance coverage, with an average of two to three years. The program focuses primarily on early intervention via individual therapy, group therapy, medication evaluation, and medication management. See Table TABREF2 for a demographic breakdown of the 220 patients, for which we have so far extracted approximately 240,000 total EHR paragraphs spanning from 2011 to 2014 using Meditech, the software employed by McLean for storing and organizing EHR data.", "These patients are part of a larger research cohort of approximately 1,800 psychosis patients, which will allow us to connect the results of this EHR study with other ongoing research studies incorporating genetic, cognitive, neurobiological, and functional outcome data from this cohort.", "We also use an additional data set for training our vector space model, comprised of EHR texts queried from the Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR), a centralized regional data repository of clinical data from all institutions in the Partners HealthCare network. These records are highly comparable in style and vocabulary to our target data set. The corpus consists of discharge summaries, encounter notes, and visit notes from approximately 30,000 patients admitted to the system's hospitals with psychiatric diagnoses and symptoms. This breadth of data captures a wide range of clinical narratives, creating a comprehensive foundation for topic extraction." ] ]

[ "Unanswerable" ]

[ [] ]

[ "A BPE model is applied to the stem after morpheme segmentation." ]

[ [ "The problem with morpheme segmentation is that the vocabulary of stem units is still very large, which leads to many rare and unknown words at the training time. The problem with BPE is that it do not consider the morpheme boundaries inside words, which might cause a loss of morphological properties and semantic information. Hence, on the analyses of the above popular word segmentation methods, we propose the morphologically motivated segmentation strategy that combines the morpheme segmentation and BPE for further improving the translation performance of NMT.", "Compared with the sentence of word surface forms, the corresponding sentence of stem units only contains the structure information without considering morphological information, which can make better generalization over inflectional variants of the same word and reduce data sparseness BIBREF8. Therefore, we learn a BPE model on the stem units in the training corpus rather than the words, and then apply it on the stem unit of each word after morpheme segmentation." ] ]

[ "morpheme segmentation BIBREF4 and Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) BIBREF5, Zemberek, BIBREF12" ]

[ [ "We will elaborate two popular word segmentation methods and our newly proposed segmentation strategies in this section. The two popular segmentation methods are morpheme segmentation BIBREF4 and Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) BIBREF5. After word segmentation, we additionally add an specific symbol behind each separated subword unit, which aims to assist the NMT model to identify the morpheme boundaries and capture the semantic information effectively. The sentence examples with different segmentation strategies for Turkish-English machine translation task are shown in Table 1.", "We utilize the Zemberek with a morphological disambiguation tool to segment the Turkish words into morpheme units, and utilize the morphology analysis tool BIBREF12 to segment the Uyghur words into morpheme units. We employ the python toolkits of jieba for Chinese word segmentation. We apply BPE on the target-side words and we set the number of merge operations to 35K for Chinese and 30K for English and we set the maximum sentence length to 150 tokens. The training corpus statistics of Turkish-English and Uyghur-Chinese machine translation tasks are shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively." ] ]

[ "No" ]

[ [] ]

[ "Unanswerable" ]

[ [] ]

[ "36" ]

[ [ "Table TABREF20 shows results for Librispeech with SpecAugment. We test both CTC and CE/hybrid systems. There are consistent gains first from iterated loss, and then from multiple feature presentation. We also run additional CTC experiments with 36 layers Transformer (total parameters $\\pm $120 millions). The baseline with 36 layers has the same performance with 24 layers, but by adding the proposed methods, the 36 layer performance improved to give the best results. This shows that our proposed methods can improve even very deep models." ] ]

[ "No" ]

[ [ "We have found it beneficial to apply the loss function at several intermediate layers of the network. Suppose there are $M$ total layers, and define a subset of these layers at which to apply the loss function: $K = \\lbrace k_1, k_2, ..., k_L\\rbrace \\subseteq \\lbrace 1,..,M-1\\rbrace $. The total objective function is then defined as", "where $Z_{k_l}$ is the $k_l$-th Transformer layer activations, $Y$ is the ground-truth transcription for CTC and context dependent states for hybrid ASR, and $Loss(P, Y)$ can be defined as CTC objective BIBREF11 or cross entropy for hybrid ASR. The coefficient $\\lambda $ scales the auxiliary loss and we set $\\lambda = 0.3$ based on our preliminary experiments. We illustrate the auxiliary prediction and loss in Figure FIGREF6." ] ]

[ "Unanswerable" ]

[ [] ]

[ "Yes" ]

[ [ "Spanish (SPA), in contrast, is morphologically rich, and disposes of much larger verbal paradigms than English. Like English, it is a suffixing language, and it additionally makes use of internal stem changes (e.g., o $\\rightarrow $ ue).", "Since English and Spanish are both Indo-European languages, and, thus, relatively similar, we further add a third, unrelated target language. We choose Zulu (ZUL), a Bantoid language. In contrast to the first two, it is strongly prefixing.", "Analyzing next the errors concerning affixes, we find that models pretrained on HUN, ITA, DEU, and FRA (in that order) commit the fewest errors. This supports two of our previous hypotheses: First, given that ITA and FRA are both from the same language family as SPA, relatedness seems to be benficial for learning of the second language. Second, the system pretrained on HUN performing well suggests again that a source language with an agglutinative, as opposed to a fusional, morphology seems to be beneficial as well.", "In Table TABREF39, the errors for Zulu are shown, and Table TABREF19 reveals the relative performance for different source languages: TUR $>$ HUN $>$ DEU $>$ ITA $>$ FRA $>$ NAV $>$ EUS $>$ QVH. Again, TUR and HUN obtain high accuracy, which is an additional indicator for our hypothesis that a source language with an agglutinative morphology facilitates learning of inflection in another language." ] ]

[ "Zulu" ]

[ [ "Since English and Spanish are both Indo-European languages, and, thus, relatively similar, we further add a third, unrelated target language. We choose Zulu (ZUL), a Bantoid language. In contrast to the first two, it is strongly prefixing." ] ]

[ "Comparison of test accuracies of neural network models on an inflection task and qualitative analysis of the errors" ]

[ [ "Neural network models, and specifically sequence-to-sequence models, have pushed the state of the art for morphological inflection – the task of learning a mapping from lemmata to their inflected forms – in the last years BIBREF6. Thus, in this work, we experiment on such models, asking not what they learn, but, motivated by the respective research on human subjects, the related question of how what they learn depends on their prior knowledge. We manually investigate the errors made by artificial neural networks for morphological inflection in a target language after pretraining on different source languages. We aim at finding answers to two main questions: (i) Do errors systematically differ between source languages? (ii) Do these differences seem explainable, given the properties of the source and target languages? In other words, we are interested in exploring if and how L2 acquisition of morphological inflection depends on the L1, i.e., the \"native language\", in neural network models.", "For our qualitative analysis, we make use of the validation set. Therefore, we show validation set accuracies in Table TABREF19 for comparison. As we can see, the results are similar to the test set results for all language combinations. We manually annotate the outputs for the first 75 development examples for each source–target language combination. All found errors are categorized as belonging to one of the following categories." ] ]

[ "English, Spanish and Zulu" ]

[ [ "To this goal, we select a diverse set of eight source languages from different language families – Basque, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Navajo, Turkish, and Quechua – and three target languages – English, Spanish and Zulu. We pretrain a neural sequence-to-sequence architecture on each of the source languages and then fine-tune the resulting models on small datasets in each of the target languages. Analyzing the errors made by the systems, we find that (i) source and target language being closely related simplifies the successful learning of inflection in the target language, (ii) the task is harder to learn in a prefixing language if the source language is suffixing – as well as the other way around, and (iii) a source language which exhibits an agglutinative morphology simplifies learning of a second language's inflectional morphology." ] ]

[ "No" ]

[ [ "The experiment settings from this paper and evaluation protocol for the Mboshi corpus (Boundary F-scores using the ZRC speech reference) are the same from BIBREF8. Table presents the results for bilingual UWS and multilingual leveraging. For the former, we reach our best result by using as aligned information the French, the original aligned language for this dataset. Languages closely related to French (Spanish and Portuguese) ranked better, while our worst result used German. English also performs notably well in our experiments. We believe this is due to the statistics features of the resulting text. We observe in Table that the English portion of the dataset contains the smallest vocabulary among all languages. Since we train our systems in very low-resource settings, vocabulary-related features can impact greatly the system's capacity to language-model, and consequently the final quality of the produced alignments. Even in high-resource settings, it was already attested that some languages are more difficult to model than others BIBREF9." ] ]

[ "No" ]

[ [ "The experiment settings from this paper and evaluation protocol for the Mboshi corpus (Boundary F-scores using the ZRC speech reference) are the same from BIBREF8. Table presents the results for bilingual UWS and multilingual leveraging. For the former, we reach our best result by using as aligned information the French, the original aligned language for this dataset. Languages closely related to French (Spanish and Portuguese) ranked better, while our worst result used German. English also performs notably well in our experiments. We believe this is due to the statistics features of the resulting text. We observe in Table that the English portion of the dataset contains the smallest vocabulary among all languages. Since we train our systems in very low-resource settings, vocabulary-related features can impact greatly the system's capacity to language-model, and consequently the final quality of the produced alignments. Even in high-resource settings, it was already attested that some languages are more difficult to model than others BIBREF9." ] ]

[ "The experiment settings from this paper and evaluation protocol for the Mboshi corpus (Boundary F-scores using the ZRC speech reference) are the same from BIBREF8., For the multilingual selection experiments, we experimented combining the languages from top to bottom as they appear Table (ranked by performance; e.g. 1-3 means the combination of FR(1), EN(2) and PT(3)). , Lastly, following the methodology from BIBREF8, we extract the most confident alignments (in terms of ANE) discovered by the bilingual models." ]

[ [ "The experiment settings from this paper and evaluation protocol for the Mboshi corpus (Boundary F-scores using the ZRC speech reference) are the same from BIBREF8. Table presents the results for bilingual UWS and multilingual leveraging. For the former, we reach our best result by using as aligned information the French, the original aligned language for this dataset. Languages closely related to French (Spanish and Portuguese) ranked better, while our worst result used German. English also performs notably well in our experiments. We believe this is due to the statistics features of the resulting text. We observe in Table that the English portion of the dataset contains the smallest vocabulary among all languages. Since we train our systems in very low-resource settings, vocabulary-related features can impact greatly the system's capacity to language-model, and consequently the final quality of the produced alignments. Even in high-resource settings, it was already attested that some languages are more difficult to model than others BIBREF9.", "For the multilingual selection experiments, we experimented combining the languages from top to bottom as they appear Table (ranked by performance; e.g. 1-3 means the combination of FR(1), EN(2) and PT(3)). We observe that the performance improvement is smaller than the one observed in previous work BIBREF10, which we attribute to the fact that our dataset was artificially augmented. This could result in the available multilingual form of supervision not being as rich as in a manually generated dataset. Finally, the best boundary segmentation result is obtained by performing multilingual voting with all the languages and an agreement of 50%, which indicates that the information learned by different languages will provide additional complementary evidence.", "Lastly, following the methodology from BIBREF8, we extract the most confident alignments (in terms of ANE) discovered by the bilingual models. Table presents the top 10 most confident (discovered type, translation) pairs. Looking at the pairs the bilingual models are most confident about, we observe there are some types discovered by all the bilingual models (e.g. Mboshi word itua, and the concatenation oboá+ngá). However, the models still differ for most of their alignments in the table. This hints that while a portion of the lexicon might be captured independently of the language used, other structures might be more dependent of the chosen language. On this note, BIBREF11 suggests the notion of word cannot always be meaningfully defined cross-linguistically." ] ]

[ " Neural Machine Translation (NMT) models are trained between language pairs, using as source language the translation (word-level) and as target" ]

[ [ "We use the bilingual neural-based Unsupervised Word Segmentation (UWS) approach from BIBREF6 to discover words in Mboshi. In this approach, Neural Machine Translation (NMT) models are trained between language pairs, using as source language the translation (word-level) and as target, the language to document (unsegmented phonemic sequence). Due to the attention mechanism present in these networks BIBREF7, posterior to training, it is possible to retrieve soft-alignment probability matrices between source and target sequences. These matrices give us sentence-level source-to-target alignment information, and by using it for clustering neighbor phonemes aligned to the same translation word, we are able to create segmentation in the target side. The product of this approach is a set of (discovered-units, translation words) pairs.", "In this work we apply two simple methods for including multilingual information into the bilingual models from BIBREF6. The first one, Multilingual Voting, consists of merging the information learned by models trained with different language pairs by performing a voting over the final discovered boundaries. The voting is performed by applying an agreement threshold $T$ over the output boundaries. This threshold balances between accepting all boundaries from all the bilingual models (zero agreement) and accepting only input boundaries discovered by all these models (total agreement). The second method is ANE Selection. For every language pair and aligned sentence in the dataset, a soft-alignment probability matrix is generated. We use Average Normalized Entropy (ANE) BIBREF8 computed over these matrices for selecting the most confident one for segmenting each phoneme sequence. This exploits the idea that models trained on different language pairs will have language-related behavior, thus differing on the resulting alignment and segmentation over the same phoneme sequence.", "Lastly, following the methodology from BIBREF8, we extract the most confident alignments (in terms of ANE) discovered by the bilingual models. Table presents the top 10 most confident (discovered type, translation) pairs. Looking at the pairs the bilingual models are most confident about, we observe there are some types discovered by all the bilingual models (e.g. Mboshi word itua, and the concatenation oboá+ngá). However, the models still differ for most of their alignments in the table. This hints that while a portion of the lexicon might be captured independently of the language used, other structures might be more dependent of the chosen language. On this note, BIBREF11 suggests the notion of word cannot always be meaningfully defined cross-linguistically." ] ]

[ "Results show that similar languages rank better in terms of segmentation performance, and that by combining the information learned by different models, segmentation is further improved." ]

[ [ "In this work we train bilingual UWS models using the endangered language Mboshi as target and different well-resourced languages as aligned information. Results show that similar languages rank better in terms of segmentation performance, and that by combining the information learned by different models, segmentation is further improved. This might be due to the different language-dependent structures that are captured by using more than one language. Lastly, we extend the bilingual Mboshi-French parallel corpus, creating a multilingual corpus for the endangered language Mboshi that we make available to the community." ] ]

[ " 4-layer encoder, 4-layer decoder, residual-connected model, with embedding and hidden size set as 256" ]

[ [ "As the baseline model (BASE-4L) for IWSLT14 German-English and Turkish-English, we use a 4-layer encoder, 4-layer decoder, residual-connected model, with embedding and hidden size set as 256 by default. As a comparison, we design a densely connected model with same number of layers, but the hidden size is set as 128 in order to keep the model size consistent. The models adopting DenseAtt-1, DenseAtt-2 are named as DenseNMT-4L-1 and DenseNMT-4L-2 respectively. In order to check the effect of dense connections on deeper models, we also construct a series of 8-layer models. We set the hidden number to be 192, such that both 4-layer models and 8-layer models have similar number of parameters. For dense structured models, we set the dimension of hidden states to be 96." ] ]

[ "Yes" ]

[ [ "Table TABREF32 shows the results for De-En, Tr-En, Tr-En-morph datasets, where the best accuracy for models with the same depth and of similar sizes are marked in boldface. In almost all genres, DenseNMT models are significantly better than the baselines. With embedding size 256, where all models achieve their best scores, DenseNMT outperforms baselines by 0.7-1.0 BLEU on De-En, 0.5-1.3 BLEU on Tr-En, 0.8-1.5 BLEU on Tr-En-morph. We observe significant gain using other embedding sizes as well." ] ]

[ "German-English, Turkish-English, English-German" ]

[ [ "We use three datasets for our experiments: IWSLT14 German-English, Turkish-English, and WMT14 English-German." ] ]

[ "IWSLT14 German-English, IWSLT14 Turkish-English, WMT14 English-German" ]

[ [ "We use three datasets for our experiments: IWSLT14 German-English, Turkish-English, and WMT14 English-German." ] ]

[ "draw our data from news publications, wine reviews, and Reddit, develop new metrics for the agreement of binomial orderings across communities and the movement of binomial orderings over time, develop a null model to determine how much variation in binomial orderings we might expect across communities and across time" ]

[ [ "The present work: Binomials in large-scale online text. In this work, we use data from large-scale Internet text corpora to study binomials at a massive scale, drawing on text created by millions of users. Our approach is more wholesale than prior work - we focus on all binomials of sufficient frequency, without first restricting to small samples of binomials that might be frozen. We draw our data from news publications, wine reviews, and Reddit, which in addition to large volume, also let us characterize binomials in new ways, and analyze differences in binomial orderings across communities and over time. Furthermore, the subject matter on Reddit leads to many lists about people and organizations that lets us study orderings of proper names — a key setting for word ordering which has been difficult to study by other means.", "We also address temporal and community structure in collections of binomials. While it has been recognized that the orderings of binomials may change over time or between communities BIBREF5, BIBREF10, BIBREF1, BIBREF13, BIBREF14, BIBREF15, there has been little analysis of this change. We develop new metrics for the agreement of binomial orderings across communities and the movement of binomial orderings over time. Using subreddits as communities, these metrics reveal variations in orderings, some of which suggest cultural change influencing language. For example, in one community, we find that over a period of 10 years, the binomial `son and daughter' went from nearly frozen to appearing in that order only 64% of the time.", "While these changes do happen, they are generally quite rare. Most binomials — frozen or not — are ordered in one way about the same percentage of the time, regardless of community or the year. We develop a null model to determine how much variation in binomial orderings we might expect across communities and across time, if binomial orderings were randomly ordered according to global asymmetry values. We find that there is less variation across time and communities in the data compared to this model, implying that binomial orderings are indeed remarkably stable." ] ]

[ "news publications, wine reviews, and Reddit" ]

[ [ "The present work: Binomials in large-scale online text. In this work, we use data from large-scale Internet text corpora to study binomials at a massive scale, drawing on text created by millions of users. Our approach is more wholesale than prior work - we focus on all binomials of sufficient frequency, without first restricting to small samples of binomials that might be frozen. We draw our data from news publications, wine reviews, and Reddit, which in addition to large volume, also let us characterize binomials in new ways, and analyze differences in binomial orderings across communities and over time. Furthermore, the subject matter on Reddit leads to many lists about people and organizations that lets us study orderings of proper names — a key setting for word ordering which has been difficult to study by other means." ] ]

[ "Trinomials are likely to appear in exactly one order" ]

[ [ "Finally, we expand our work to include multinomials, which are lists of more than two words. There already appears to be more structure in trinomials (lists of three) compared to binomials. Trinomials are likely to appear in exactly one order, and when they appear in more than one order the last word is almost always the same across all instances. For instance, in one section of our Reddit data, `Fraud, Waste, and Abuse' appears 34 times, and `Waste, Fraud, and Abuse' appears 20 times. This could point to, for example, recency principles being more important in lists of three than in lists of two. While multinomials were in principle part of the scope of past research in this area, they were difficult to study in smaller corpora, suggesting another benefit of working at our current scale." ] ]

[ "null model " ]

[ [ "While these changes do happen, they are generally quite rare. Most binomials — frozen or not — are ordered in one way about the same percentage of the time, regardless of community or the year. We develop a null model to determine how much variation in binomial orderings we might expect across communities and across time, if binomial orderings were randomly ordered according to global asymmetry values. We find that there is less variation across time and communities in the data compared to this model, implying that binomial orderings are indeed remarkably stable." ] ]

[ " close to random," ]

[ [ "Basic Features. We first use predictors based on rules that have previously been proposed in the literature: word length, number of phonemes, number of syllables, alphabetical order, and frequency. We collect all binomials but make predictions only on binomials appearing at least 30 times total, stratified by subreddit. However, none of these features appear to be particularly predictive across the board (Table TABREF15). A simple linear regression model predicts close to random, which bolsters the evidence that these classical rules for frozen binomials are not predictive for general binomials." ] ]

[ "word length, number of phonemes, number of syllables, alphabetical order, and frequency" ]

[ [ "Basic Features. We first use predictors based on rules that have previously been proposed in the literature: word length, number of phonemes, number of syllables, alphabetical order, and frequency. We collect all binomials but make predictions only on binomials appearing at least 30 times total, stratified by subreddit. However, none of these features appear to be particularly predictive across the board (Table TABREF15). A simple linear regression model predicts close to random, which bolsters the evidence that these classical rules for frozen binomials are not predictive for general binomials." ] ]

[ "news publications, wine reviews, and Reddit" ]

[ [ "The present work: Binomials in large-scale online text. In this work, we use data from large-scale Internet text corpora to study binomials at a massive scale, drawing on text created by millions of users. Our approach is more wholesale than prior work - we focus on all binomials of sufficient frequency, without first restricting to small samples of binomials that might be frozen. We draw our data from news publications, wine reviews, and Reddit, which in addition to large volume, also let us characterize binomials in new ways, and analyze differences in binomial orderings across communities and over time. Furthermore, the subject matter on Reddit leads to many lists about people and organizations that lets us study orderings of proper names — a key setting for word ordering which has been difficult to study by other means." ] ]

[ "We experiment with three different pretrained representations: ELMo BIBREF5 , BERT BIBREF6 , and GloVe BIBREF18 . To produce a single city embedding, we compute the TF-IDF weighted element-wise mean of the token-level representations. For all pretrained methods, we additionally reduce the dimensionality of the city embeddings to 40 using PCA for increased compatibility with our clustering algorithm." ]

[ [ "While each of the city descriptions is relatively short, Calvino's writing is filled with rare words, complex syntactic structures, and figurative language. Capturing the essential components of each city in a single vector is thus not as simple as it is with more standard forms of text. Nevertheless, we hope that representations from language models trained over billions of words of text can extract some meaningful semantics from these descriptions. We experiment with three different pretrained representations: ELMo BIBREF5 , BERT BIBREF6 , and GloVe BIBREF18 . To produce a single city embedding, we compute the TF-IDF weighted element-wise mean of the token-level representations. For all pretrained methods, we additionally reduce the dimensionality of the city embeddings to 40 using PCA for increased compatibility with our clustering algorithm." ] ]

[ "Using crowdsourcing " ]

[ [ "As the book is too small to train any models, we leverage recent advances in large-scale language model-based representations BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 to compute a representation of each city. We feed these representations into a clustering algorithm that produces exactly eleven clusters of five cities each and evaluate them against both Calvino's original labels and crowdsourced human judgments. While the overall correlation with Calvino's labels is low, both computers and humans can reliably identify some thematic groups associated with concrete objects." ] ]

[ " We devise a simple clustering algorithm to approximate this process. First, we initialize with random cluster assignments and define “cluster strength” to be the relative difference between “intra-group” Euclidean distance and “inter-group” Euclidean distance. Then, we iteratively propose random exchanges of memberships, only accepting these proposals when the cluster strength increases, until convergence. " ]

[ [ "Given 55 city representations, how do we group them into eleven clusters of five cities each? Initially, we experimented with a graph-based community detection algorithm that maximizes cluster modularity BIBREF20 , but we found no simple way to constrain this method to produce a specific number of equally-sized clusters. The brute force approach of enumerating all possible cluster assignments is intractable given the large search space ( INLINEFORM0 possible assignments). We devise a simple clustering algorithm to approximate this process. First, we initialize with random cluster assignments and define “cluster strength” to be the relative difference between “intra-group” Euclidean distance and “inter-group” Euclidean distance. Then, we iteratively propose random exchanges of memberships, only accepting these proposals when the cluster strength increases, until convergence. To evaluate the quality of the computationally-derived clusters against those of Calvino, we measure cluster purity BIBREF21 : given a set of predicted clusters INLINEFORM1 and ground-truth clusters INLINEFORM2 that both partition a set of INLINEFORM3 data points, INLINEFORM4" ] ]

[ "single-domain setting" ]

[ [] ]

[ "joint goal accuracy" ]

[ [ "As a convention, the metric of joint goal accuracy is used to compare our model to previous work. The joint goal accuracy only regards the model making a successful belief state prediction if all of the slots and values predicted are exactly matched with the labels provided. This metric gives a strict measurement that tells how often the DST module will not propagate errors to the downstream modules in a dialogue system. In this work, the model with the highest joint accuracy on the validation set is evaluated on the test set for the test joint accuracy measurement." ] ]

[ "the single domain dataset, WoZ2.0 , the multi-domain dataset, MultiWoZ" ]

[ [ "We first test our model on the single domain dataset, WoZ2.0 BIBREF19 . It consists of 1,200 dialogues from the restaurant reservation domain with three pre-defined slots: food, price range, and area. Since the name slot rarely occurs in the dataset, it is not included in our experiments, following previous literature BIBREF3 , BIBREF20 . Our model is also tested on the multi-domain dataset, MultiWoZ BIBREF9 . It has a more complex ontology with 7 domains and 25 predefined slots. Since the combined slot-value pairs representation of the belief states has to be applied for the model with $O(n)$ ITC, the total number of slots is 35. The statistics of these two datsets are shown in Table 2 ." ] ]

[ "Unanswerable" ]

[ [] ]

[ "Unanswerable" ]

[ [] ]

[ "70,000" ]

[ [ "In a new experiment, we train the models on pairs of sentences with length 5, 7 or 8, and test on pairs of sentences with lengths 6 or 9. As before, the training and test sets contain some 30,000 and 5,000 sentence pairs, respectively. Results are shown in Table UID19 ." ] ]

[ "documents from the CommonCrawl dataset that has the most overlapping n-grams with the question" ]

[ [ "As previous systems collect relevant data from knowledge bases after observing questions during evaluation BIBREF24 , BIBREF25 , we also explore using this option. Namely, we build a customized text corpus based on questions in commonsense reasoning tasks. It is important to note that this does not include the answers and therefore does not provide supervision to our resolvers. In particular, we aggregate documents from the CommonCrawl dataset that has the most overlapping n-grams with the questions. The score for each document is a weighted sum of $F_1(n)$ scores when counting overlapping n-grams: $Similarity\\_Score_{document} = \\frac{\\sum _{n=1}^4nF_1(n)}{\\sum _{n=1}^4n}$", "The top 0.1% of highest ranked documents is chosen as our new training corpus. Details of the ranking is shown in Figure 2 . This procedure resulted in nearly 1,000,000 documents, with the highest ranking document having a score of $8\\times 10^{-2}$ , still relatively small to a perfect score of $1.0$ . We name this dataset STORIES since most of the constituent documents take the form of a story with long chain of coherent events.", "Figure 5 -left and middle show that STORIES always yield the highest accuracy for both types of input processing. We next rank the text corpora based on ensemble performance for more reliable results. Namely, we compare the previous ensemble of 10 models against the same set of models trained on each single text corpus. This time, the original ensemble trained on a diverse set of text corpora outperforms all other single-corpus ensembles including STORIES. This highlights the important role of diversity in training data for commonsense reasoning accuracy of the final system." ] ]

[ "Yes" ]

[ [ "As previous systems collect relevant data from knowledge bases after observing questions during evaluation BIBREF24 , BIBREF25 , we also explore using this option. Namely, we build a customized text corpus based on questions in commonsense reasoning tasks. It is important to note that this does not include the answers and therefore does not provide supervision to our resolvers. In particular, we aggregate documents from the CommonCrawl dataset that has the most overlapping n-grams with the questions. The score for each document is a weighted sum of $F_1(n)$ scores when counting overlapping n-grams: $Similarity\\_Score_{document} = \\frac{\\sum _{n=1}^4nF_1(n)}{\\sum _{n=1}^4n}$" ] ]

[ "Because, unlike other languages, English does not mark grammatical genders" ]

[ [ "To date, the NLP community has focused primarily on approaches for detecting and mitigating gender stereotypes in English BIBREF5 , BIBREF6 , BIBREF7 . Yet, gender stereotypes also exist in other languages because they are a function of society, not of grammar. Moreover, because English does not mark grammatical gender, approaches developed for English are not transferable to morphologically rich languages that exhibit gender agreement BIBREF8 . In these languages, the words in a sentence are marked with morphological endings that reflect the grammatical gender of the surrounding nouns. This means that if the gender of one word changes, the others have to be updated to match. As a result, simple heuristics, such as augmenting a corpus with additional sentences in which he and she have been swapped BIBREF9 , will yield ungrammatical sentences. Consider the Spanish phrase el ingeniero experto (the skilled engineer). Replacing ingeniero with ingeniera is insufficient—el must also be replaced with la and experto with experta." ] ]

[ "by calculating log ratio of grammatical phrase over ungrammatical phrase" ]

[ [ "Because our approach is specifically intended to yield sentences that are grammatical, we additionally consider the following log ratio (i.e., the grammatical phrase over the ungrammatical phrase): DISPLAYFORM0" ] ]

[ "Markov random field with an optional neural parameterization" ]

[ [ "We presented a new approach for converting between masculine-inflected and feminine-inflected noun phrases in morphologically rich languages. To do this, we introduced a Markov random field with an optional neural parameterization that infers the manner in which a sentence must change to preserve morpho-syntactic agreement when altering the grammatical gender of particular nouns. To the best of our knowledge, this task has not been studied previously. As a result, there is no existing annotated corpus of paired sentences that can be used as “ground truth.” Despite this limitation, we evaluated our approach both intrinsically and extrinsically, achieving promising results. For example, we demonstrated that our approach reduces gender stereotyping in neural language models. Finally, we also identified avenues for future work, such as the inclusion of co-reference information." ] ]

[ "Unanswerable" ]

[ [] ]

[ "Unanswerable" ]

[ [] ]

[ "(about 4 million sentences, 138 million word tokens), one trained on the Billion Word benchmark" ]

[ [ "are trained to output the probability distribution of the upcoming word given a context, without explicitly representing the structure of the context BIBREF9, BIBREF10. We trained two two-layer recurrent neural language models with long short-term memory architecture BIBREF11 on a relatively small corpus. The first model, referred as `LSTM (PTB)' in the following sections, was trained on the sentences from Penn Treebank BIBREF12. The second model, referred as `LSTM (FTB)', was trained on the sentences from French Treebank BIBREF13. We set the size of input word embedding and LSTM hidden layer of both models as 256.", "We also compare LSTM language models trained on large corpora. We incorporate two pretrained English language models: one trained on the Billion Word benchmark (referred as `LSTM (1B)') from BIBREF14, and the other trained on English Wikipedia (referred as `LSTM (enWiki)') from BIBREF3. For French, we trained a large LSTM language model (referred as `LSTM (frWaC)') on a random subset (about 4 million sentences, 138 million word tokens) of the frWaC dataset BIBREF15. We set the size of the input embeddings and hidden layers to 400 for the LSTM (frWaC) model since it is trained on a large dataset." ] ]

[ "Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), ActionLSTM, Generative Recurrent Neural Network Grammars (RNNG)" ]

[ [ "Methods ::: Models Tested ::: Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) Language Models", "are trained to output the probability distribution of the upcoming word given a context, without explicitly representing the structure of the context BIBREF9, BIBREF10. We trained two two-layer recurrent neural language models with long short-term memory architecture BIBREF11 on a relatively small corpus. The first model, referred as `LSTM (PTB)' in the following sections, was trained on the sentences from Penn Treebank BIBREF12. The second model, referred as `LSTM (FTB)', was trained on the sentences from French Treebank BIBREF13. We set the size of input word embedding and LSTM hidden layer of both models as 256.", "Methods ::: Models Tested ::: ActionLSTM", "models the linearized bracketed tree structure of a sentence by learning to predict the next action required to construct a phrase-structure parse BIBREF16. The action space consists of three possibilities: open a new non-terminal node and opening bracket; generate a terminal node; and close a bracket. To compute surprisal values for a given token, we approximate $P(w_i|w_{1\\cdots i-1)}$ by marginalizing over the most-likely partial parses found by word-synchronous beam search BIBREF17.", "Methods ::: Models Tested ::: Generative Recurrent Neural Network Grammars (RNNG)", "jointly model the word sequence as well as the underlying syntactic structure BIBREF18. Following BIBREF19, we estimate surprisal using word-synchronous beam search BIBREF17. We use the same hyper-parameter settings as BIBREF18." ] ]

[ "the evaluation metrics include BLEU and ROUGE (1, 2, L) scores" ]

[ [ "The probability of activating inter-layer and inner-layer teacher forcing is set to 0.5, the probability of teacher forcing is attenuated every epoch, and the decaying ratio is 0.9. The models are trained for 20 training epochs without early stop; when curriculum learning is applied, only the first layer is trained during first five epochs, the second decoder layer starts to be trained at the sixth epoch, and so on. To evaluate the quality of the generated sequences regarding both precision and recall, the evaluation metrics include BLEU and ROUGE (1, 2, L) scores with multiple references BIBREF22 ." ] ]

[ "The E2E NLG challenge dataset BIBREF21" ]

[ [ "The E2E NLG challenge dataset BIBREF21 is utilized in our experiments, which is a crowd-sourced dataset of 50k instances in the restaurant domain. Our models are trained on the official training set and verified on the official testing set. As shown in Figure FIGREF2 , the inputs are semantic frames containing specific slots and corresponding values, and the outputs are the associated natural language utterances with the given semantics. For example, a semantic frame with the slot-value pairs “name[Bibimbap House], food[English], priceRange[moderate], area [riverside], near [Clare Hall]” corresponds to the target sentence “Bibimbap House is a moderately priced restaurant who's main cuisine is English food. You will find this local gem near Clare Hall in the Riverside area.”." ] ]

[ "better sentence pair representations" ]

[ [ "Without ELMo (the same setting as 4-th row in Table 3 ), our data settings is the same as qin-EtAl:2017:Long whose performance was state-of-the-art and will be compared directly. We see that even without the pre-trained ELMo encoder, our performance is better, which is mostly attributed to our better sentence pair representations." ] ]

[ "Between the model and Stanford, Spacy and Flair the differences are 42.91, 25.03, 69.8 with Traditional NERs as reference and 49.88, 43.36, 62.43 with Wikipedia titles as reference." ]

[ [] ]

[ "F1 score and Recall are 68.66, 80.08 with Traditional NERs as reference and 59.56, 69.76 with Wikipedia titles as reference." ]

[ [] ]

[ "4 layers" ]

[ [] ]

[ "Unanswerable" ]

[ [] ]

[ "English wikipedia dataset has more than 18 million, a dump of 15 million English news articles " ]

[ [ "We need good amount of data to try deep learning state-of-the-art algorithms. There are lot of open datasets available for names, locations, organisations, but not for topics as defined in Abstract above. Also defining and inferring topics is an individual preference and there are no fix set of rules for its definition. But according to our definition, we can use wikipedia titles as our target topics. English wikipedia dataset has more than 18 million titles if we consider all versions of them till now. We had to clean up the titles to remove junk titles as wikipedia title almost contains all the words we use daily. To remove such titles, we deployed simple rules as follows -", "After doing some more cleaning we were left with 10 million titles. We have a dump of 15 million English news articles published in past 4 years. Further, we reduced number of articles by removing duplicate and near similar articles. We used our pre-trained doc2vec models and cosine similarity to detect almost similar news articles. Then selected minimum articles required to cover all possible 2-grams to 5-grams. This step is done to save some training time without loosing accuracy. Do note that, in future we are planning to use whole dataset and hope to see gains in F1 and Recall further. But as per manual inspection, our dataset contains enough variations of sentences with rich vocabulary which contains names of celebrities, politicians, local authorities, national/local organisations and almost all locations, India and International, mentioned in the news text, in last 4 years." ] ]

[ "the BIBREF5 sieve system from the rule-based paradigm (referred to as RULE), BIBREF6 from the statistical paradigm (STAT), and the BIBREF11 deep reinforcement system from the neural paradigm (NEURAL)." ]

[ [ "In this work, we evaluate three publicly-available off-the-shelf coreference resolution systems, representing three different machine learning paradigms: rule-based systems, feature-driven statistical systems, and neural systems.", "We evaluate examples of each of the three coreference system architectures described in \"Coreference Systems\" : the BIBREF5 sieve system from the rule-based paradigm (referred to as RULE), BIBREF6 from the statistical paradigm (STAT), and the BIBREF11 deep reinforcement system from the neural paradigm (NEURAL)." ] ]

[ "Compared with the previous SOTA without BERT on SParC, our model improves Ques.Match and Int.Match by $10.6$ and $5.4$ points, respectively." ]

[ [ "We consider three models as our baselines. SyntaxSQL-con and CD-Seq2Seq are two strong baselines introduced in the SParC dataset paper BIBREF2. SyntaxSQL-con employs a BiLSTM model to encode dialogue history upon the SyntaxSQLNet model (analogous to our Turn) BIBREF23, while CD-Seq2Seq is adapted from BIBREF4 for cross-domain settings (analogous to our Turn+Tree Copy). EditSQL BIBREF5 is a STOA baseline which mainly makes use of SQL attention and token-level copy (analogous to our Turn+SQL Attn+Action Copy).", "Taking Concat as a representative, we compare the performance of our model with other models, as shown in Table TABREF34. As illustrated, our model outperforms baselines by a large margin with or without BERT, achieving new SOTA performances on both datasets. Compared with the previous SOTA without BERT on SParC, our model improves Ques.Match and Int.Match by $10.6$ and $5.4$ points, respectively." ] ]

[ "SParC BIBREF2 and CoSQL BIBREF6" ]

[ [ "In this paper, we try to fulfill the above insufficiency via an exploratory study on real-world semantic parsing in context. Concretely, we present a grammar-based decoding semantic parser and adapt typical context modeling methods on top of it. Through experiments on two large complex cross-domain datasets, SParC BIBREF2 and CoSQL BIBREF6, we carefully compare and analyze the performance of different context modeling methods. Our best model achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performances on both datasets with significant improvements. Furthermore, we summarize and generalize the most frequent contextual phenomena, with a fine-grained analysis on representative models. Through the analysis, we obtain some interesting findings, which may benefit the community on the potential research directions. We will open-source our code and materials to facilitate future work upon acceptance." ] ]

[ "Concat\nTurn\nGate\nAction Copy\nTree Copy\nSQL Attn\nConcat + Action Copy\nConcat + Tree Copy\nConcat + SQL Attn\nTurn + Action Copy\nTurn + Tree Copy\nTurn + SQL Attn\nTurn + SQL Attn + Action Copy" ]

[ [ "To conduct a thorough comparison, we evaluate 13 different context modeling methods upon the same parser, including 6 methods introduced in Section SECREF2 and 7 selective combinations of them (e.g., Concat+Action Copy). The experimental results are presented in Figure FIGREF37. Taken as a whole, it is very surprising to observe that none of these methods can be consistently superior to the others. The experimental results on BERT-based models show the same trend. Diving deep into the methods only using recent questions as context, we observe that Concat and Turn perform competitively, outperforming Gate by a large margin. With respect to the methods only using precedent SQL as context, Action Copy significantly surpasses Tree Copy and SQL Attn in all metrics. In addition, we observe that there is little difference in the performance of Action Copy and Concat, which implies that using precedent SQL as context gives almost the same effect with using recent questions. In terms of the combinations of different context modeling methods, they do not significantly improve the performance as we expected." ] ]

[ "SParC BIBREF2 and CoSQL BIBREF6" ]

[ [ "In this paper, we try to fulfill the above insufficiency via an exploratory study on real-world semantic parsing in context. Concretely, we present a grammar-based decoding semantic parser and adapt typical context modeling methods on top of it. Through experiments on two large complex cross-domain datasets, SParC BIBREF2 and CoSQL BIBREF6, we carefully compare and analyze the performance of different context modeling methods. Our best model achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performances on both datasets with significant improvements. Furthermore, we summarize and generalize the most frequent contextual phenomena, with a fine-grained analysis on representative models. Through the analysis, we obtain some interesting findings, which may benefit the community on the potential research directions. We will open-source our code and materials to facilitate future work upon acceptance." ] ]

[ "AGDT improves the performance by 2.4% and 1.6% in the “DS” part of the two dataset, Our AGDT surpasses GCAE by a very large margin (+11.4% and +4.9% respectively) on both datasets, In the “HDS” part, the AGDT model obtains +3.6% higher accuracy than GCAE on the restaurant domain and +4.2% higher accuracy on the laptop domain" ]

[ [ "Experiments ::: Main Results and Analysis ::: Aspect-Category Sentiment Analysis Task", "We present the overall performance of our model and baseline models in Table TABREF27. Results show that our AGDT outperforms all baseline models on both “restaurant-14” and “restaurant-large” datasets. ATAE-LSTM employs an aspect-weakly associative encoder to generate the aspect-specific sentence representation by simply concatenating the aspect, which is insufficient to exploit the given aspect. Although GCAE incorporates the gating mechanism to control the sentiment information flow according to the given aspect, the information flow is generated by an aspect-independent encoder. Compared with GCAE, our AGDT improves the performance by 2.4% and 1.6% in the “DS” part of the two dataset, respectively. These results demonstrate that our AGDT can sufficiently exploit the given aspect to generate the aspect-guided sentence representation, and thus conduct accurate sentiment prediction. Our model benefits from the following aspects. First, our AGDT utilizes an aspect-guided encoder, which leverages the given aspect to guide the sentence encoding from scratch and generates the aspect-guided representation. Second, the AGDT guarantees that the aspect-specific information has been fully embedded in the sentence representation via reconstructing the given aspect. Third, the given aspect embedding is concatenated on the aspect-guided sentence representation for final predictions.", "The “HDS”, which is designed to measure whether a model can detect different sentiment polarities in a sentence, consists of replicated sentences with different sentiments towards multiple aspects. Our AGDT surpasses GCAE by a very large margin (+11.4% and +4.9% respectively) on both datasets. This indicates that the given aspect information is very pivotal to the accurate sentiment prediction, especially when the sentence has different sentiment labels, which is consistent with existing work BIBREF2, BIBREF3, BIBREF4. Those results demonstrate the effectiveness of our model and suggest that our AGDT has better ability to distinguish the different sentiments of multiple aspects compared to GCAE.", "Experiments ::: Main Results and Analysis ::: Aspect-Term Sentiment Analysis Task", "In the “HDS” part, the AGDT model obtains +3.6% higher accuracy than GCAE on the restaurant domain and +4.2% higher accuracy on the laptop domain, which shows that our AGDT has stronger ability for the multi-sentiment problem against GCAE. These results further demonstrate that our model works well across tasks and datasets." ] ]

[ "Yes" ]

[ [ "Experiments ::: Baselines", "To comprehensively evaluate our AGDT, we compare the AGDT with several competitive models." ] ]

[ "There were hierarchical and non-hierarchical baselines; BERT was one of those baselines" ]

[ [ "Our main results on the CNNDM dataset are shown in Table 1 , with abstractive models in the top block and extractive models in the bottom block. Pointer+Coverage BIBREF9 , Abstract-ML+RL BIBREF10 and DCA BIBREF42 are all sequence to sequence learning based models with copy and coverage modeling, reinforcement learning and deep communicating agents extensions. SentRewrite BIBREF26 and InconsisLoss BIBREF25 all try to decompose the word by word summary generation into sentence selection from document and “sentence” level summarization (or compression). Bottom-Up BIBREF27 generates summaries by combines a word prediction model with the decoder attention model. The extractive models are usually based on hierarchical encoders (SummaRuNNer; BIBREF3 and NeuSum; BIBREF11 ). They have been extended with reinforcement learning (Refresh; BIBREF4 and BanditSum; BIBREF20 ), Maximal Marginal Relevance (NeuSum-MMR; BIBREF21 ), latent variable modeling (LatentSum; BIBREF5 ) and syntactic compression (JECS; BIBREF38 ). Lead3 is a baseline which simply selects the first three sentences. Our model $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_S$ (in-domain), which only use one pre-training stage on the in-domain CNNDM training set, outperforms all of them and differences between them are all significant with a 0.95 confidence interval (estimated with the ROUGE script). Note that pre-training $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_S$ (in-domain) is very fast and it only takes around 30 minutes for one epoch on the CNNDM training set. Our models with two pre-training stages ( $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_S$ ) or larger size ( $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_M$ ) perform even better and $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_M$ outperforms BERT by 0.5 ROUGE. We also implemented two baselines. One is the hierarchical transformer summarization model (HeriTransfomer; described in \"Extractive Summarization\" ) without pre-training. Note the setting for HeriTransfomer is ( $L=4$ , $H=300$ and $A=4$ ) . We can see that the pre-training (details in Section \"Pre-training\" ) leads to a +1.25 ROUGE improvement. Another baseline is based on a pre-trained BERT BIBREF0 and finetuned on the CNNDM dataset. We used the $\\text{BERT}_{\\text{base}}$ model because our 16G RAM V100 GPU cannot fit $\\text{BERT}_{\\text{large}}$ for the summarization task even with batch size of 1. The positional embedding of BERT supports input length up to 512 words, we therefore split documents with more than 10 sentences into multiple blocks (each block with 10 sentences). We feed each block (the BOS and EOS tokens of each sentence are replaced with [CLS] and [SEP] tokens) into BERT and use the representation at [CLS] token to classify each sentence. Our model $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_S$1 outperforms BERT by 0.4 to 0.5 ROUGE despite with only half the number of model parameters ( $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_S$2 54.6M v.s. BERT 110M). Results on the NYT50 dataset show the similar trends (see Table 2 ). EXTRACTION is a extractive model based hierarchical LSTM and we use the numbers reported by xu:2019:arxiv. The improvement of $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_S$3 over the baseline without pre-training (HeriTransformer) becomes 2.0 ROUGE. $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_S$4 (in-domain), $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_S$5 (in-domain), $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_S$6 and $\\text{\\sc Hibert}_S$7 all outperform BERT significantly according to the ROUGE script." ] ]

[ "No" ]

[ [] ]

[ "agreement rates, Kappa value" ]

[ [ "We measured intra-annotator agreement between two annotators in three aspects: relations, senses, arguments. To be specific, the annotators’ consistency in annotating the type of a specific relation or sense and the position and scope of arguments are measured. To assess the consistency of annotations and also eliminate coincidental annotations, we used agreement rates, which is calculated by dividing the number of senses under each category where the annotators annotate consistently by the total number of each kind of sense. And considering the potential impact of unbalanced distribution of senses, we also used the Kappa value. And the final agreement study was carried out for the first 300 relations in our corpus. We obtained high agreement results and Kappa value for the discourse relation type and top-level senses ($\\ge {0.9} $ ). However, what we did was more than this, and we also achieved great results on the second-level and third-level senses for the sake of our self-demand for high-quality, finally achieving agreement of 0.85 and Kappa value of 0.83 for these two deeper levels of senses." ] ]

[ "agreement of 0.85 and Kappa value of 0.83" ]

[ [ "We measured intra-annotator agreement between two annotators in three aspects: relations, senses, arguments. To be specific, the annotators’ consistency in annotating the type of a specific relation or sense and the position and scope of arguments are measured. To assess the consistency of annotations and also eliminate coincidental annotations, we used agreement rates, which is calculated by dividing the number of senses under each category where the annotators annotate consistently by the total number of each kind of sense. And considering the potential impact of unbalanced distribution of senses, we also used the Kappa value. And the final agreement study was carried out for the first 300 relations in our corpus. We obtained high agreement results and Kappa value for the discourse relation type and top-level senses ($\\ge {0.9} $ ). However, what we did was more than this, and we also achieved great results on the second-level and third-level senses for the sake of our self-demand for high-quality, finally achieving agreement of 0.85 and Kappa value of 0.83 for these two deeper levels of senses." ] ]

[ "removing AltLexC and adding Progression into our sense hierarchy" ]

[ [ "In this paper, we describe our scheme and process in annotating shallow discourse relations using PDTB-style. In view of the differences between English and Chinese, we made adaptations for the PDTB-3 scheme such as removing AltLexC and adding Progression into our sense hierarchy. To ensure the annotation quality, we formulated detailed annotation criteria and quality assurance strategies. After serious training, we annotated 3212 discourse relations, and we achieved a satisfactory consistency of labelling with a Kappa value of greater than 0.85 for most of the indicators. Finally, we display our annotation results in which the distribution of discourse relations and senses differ from that in other corpora which annotate news report or newspaper texts. Our corpus contains more Contingency, Temporal and Comparison relations instead of being governed by Expansion." ] ]

[ "F1 score of best authors' model is 55.98 compared to BiLSTM and FastText that have F1 score slighlty higher than 46.61." ]

[ [ "We see that parent quality is a simple yet effective feature and SVM model with this feature can achieve significantly higher ($p<0.001$) F1 score ($46.61\\%$) than distance from the thesis and linguistic features. Claims with higher impact parents are more likely to be have higher impact. Similarity with the parent and thesis is not significantly better than the majority baseline. Although the BiLSTM model with attention and FastText baselines performs better than the SVM with distance from the thesis and linguistic features, it has similar performance to the parent quality baseline.", "We find that the flat representation of the context achieves the highest F1 score. It may be more difficult for the models with a larger number of parameters to perform better than the flat representation since the dataset is small. We also observe that modeling 3 claims on the argument path before the target claim achieves the best F1 score ($55.98\\%$)." ] ]

[ "SVM with RBF kernel" ]

[ [ "Similar to BIBREF9, we experiment with SVM with RBF kernel, with features that represent (1) the simple characteristics of the argument tree and (2) the linguistic characteristics of the claim." ] ]

[ "While evaluating the impact of a claim, users have access to the full argument context and therefore, they can assess how impactful a claim is in the given context of an argument." ]

[ [ "Claims and impact votes. We collected 47,219 claims from kialo.com for 741 controversial topics and their corresponding impact votes. Impact votes are provided by the users of the platform to evaluate how impactful a particular claim is. Users can pick one of 5 possible impact labels for a particular claim: no impact, low impact, medium impact, high impact and very high impact. While evaluating the impact of a claim, users have access to the full argument context and therefore, they can assess how impactful a claim is in the given context of an argument. An interesting observation is that, in this dataset, the same claim can have different impact labels depending on the context in which it is presented." ] ]

[ "5 possible impact labels for a particular claim: no impact, low impact, medium impact, high impact and very high impact" ]

[ [ "Claims and impact votes. We collected 47,219 claims from kialo.com for 741 controversial topics and their corresponding impact votes. Impact votes are provided by the users of the platform to evaluate how impactful a particular claim is. Users can pick one of 5 possible impact labels for a particular claim: no impact, low impact, medium impact, high impact and very high impact. While evaluating the impact of a claim, users have access to the full argument context and therefore, they can assess how impactful a claim is in the given context of an argument. An interesting observation is that, in this dataset, the same claim can have different impact labels depending on the context in which it is presented." ] ]

[ "4,261 days for France and 4,748 for the UK" ]

[ [ "Our work aims at predicting time series using exclusively text. Therefore for both countries the inputs of all our models consist only of written daily weather reports. Under their raw shape, those reports take the form of PDF documents giving a short summary of the country's overall weather, accompanied by pressure, temperature, wind, etc. maps. Note that those reports are written a posteriori, although they could be written in a predictive fashion as well. The reports are published by Météo France and the Met Office, its British counterpart. They are publicly available on the respective websites of the organizations. Both corpora span on the same period as the corresponding time series and given their daily nature, it yields a total of 4,261 and 4,748 documents respectively. An excerpt for each language may be found in tables TABREF6 and TABREF7. The relevant text was extracted from the PDF documents using the Python library PyPDF2." ] ]