Dominican Republic

One can find dozens of data resources for various languages in which coreference – a relation between two or more expressions that refer to the same real-world entity – is manually annotated. One could also assume that such expressions usually constitute syntactically meaningful units; however, mention spans have been annotated simply by delimiting token intervals in most coreference projects, i.e., independently of any syntactic representation. We argue that it could be advantageous to make syntactic and coreference annotations convergent in the long term. We present a pilot empirical study focused on matches and mismatches between hand-annotated linear mention spans and automatically parsed syntactic trees that follow Universal Dependencies conventions. The study covers 9 datasets for 8 different languages.

EMNLP 2021

Do UD Trees Match Mention Spans in Coreference Annotations?

EMNLP 2021 is planned to be a hybrid event in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, with both on-site and fully virtual participation possible. The experience for on-site participants would closely approximate a normal pre-COVID *ACL conference, with 5-6 thematically organized parallel sessions and live Q/A and interactive discussion immediately after the talks. Presentations by virtual participants will be equitably interleaved with those of on-site participants, projected on the auditorium screens as if on-site, and also followed immediately by live Q/A and interactive discussion at a time during reasonable waking hours for the virtual presenter. For all participants, on-site and virtual, who are unable to attend a session due to either time-zone issues or because they are participating in another session live, talk recordings and slides will be available online at a minimum after the live presentation (and in many cases before as well), and questions may be submitted in advance on session-specific discussion boards and answered live in session with the usual visual aids if desired.

<iframe style="width:700px;height:400px" src="https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/ceby/"  seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" ></iframe>

Please Note: The EMNLP registration system is not currently connected to the underline site as we are still in the process of building out EMNLP 2021. You will receive access instructions from underline the week of November 1st. 

Access is given only to EMNLP upon registration, if you have not registered please do so [here](https://2021.emnlp.org/registration).

Registered attendees will receive access the week of November 1st.

EMNLP 2021 is planned to be a hybrid event in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, with both on-site and fully virtual participation possible.

workshop paper

Standard train-dev-test splits used to benchmark multiple models against each other are ubiquitously used in Natural Language Processing (NLP). In this setup, the train data is used for training the model, the development set for evaluating different versions of the proposed model(s) during development, and the test set to confirm the answers to the main research question(s). However, the introduction of neural networks in NLP has led to a different use of these standard splits; the development set is now often used for model selection during the training procedure. Because of this, comparing multiple versions of the same model during development leads to overestimation on the development data. As an effect, people have started to compare an increasing amount of models on the test data, leading to faster overfitting and ``expiration'' of our test sets. We propose to use a tune-set when developing neural network methods, which can be used for model picking so that comparing the different versions of a new model can safely be done on the development data.

We Need to Talk About train-dev-test Splits

Enabling open-domain dialogue systems to ask clarifying questions when appropriate is an important direction for improving the quality of the system response. Namely, for cases when a user request is not specific enough for a conversation system to provide an answer right away, it is desirable to ask a clarifying question to increase the chances of retrieving a satisfying answer. To address the problem of `asking clarifying questions in open-domain dialogues': (1) we collect and release a new dataset focused on open-domain single- and multi-turn conversations, (2) we benchmark several state-of-the-art neural baselines, and (3) we propose a pipeline consisting of offline and online steps for evaluating the quality of clarifying questions in various dialogues. These contributions are suitable as a foundation for further research.

Building and Evaluating Open-Domain Dialogue Corpora with Clarifying Questions

Large language models have shown promising results in zero-shot settings (Brown et al.,2020; Radford et al., 2019). For example, they can perform multiple choice tasks simply by conditioning on a question and selecting the answer with the highest probability. However, ranking by string probability can be problematic due to surface form competition-wherein different surface forms compete for probability mass, even if they represent the same underlying concept, e.g. "computer" and "PC." Since probability mass is finite, this lowers the probability of the correct answer, due to competition from other strings that are valid answers (but not one of the multiple choice options). We introduce Domain Conditional Pointwise Mutual Information, an alternative scoring function that directly compensates for surface form competition by simply reweighing each option according to a term that is proportional to its a priori likelihood within the context of the specific zero-shot task. It achieves consistent gains in zero-shot performance over both calibrated (Zhao et al., 2021) and uncalibrated scoring functions on all GPT-2 and GPT-3 models over a variety of multiple choice datasets.

Surface Form Competition: Why the Highest Probability Answer Isn’t Always Right

We present ReasonBert, a pre-training method that augments language models with the ability to reason over long-range relations and multiple, possibly hybrid contexts. Unlike existing pre-training methods that only harvest learning signals from local contexts of naturally occurring texts, we propose a generalized notion of distant supervision to automatically connect multiple pieces of text and tables to create pre-training examples that require long-range reasoning. Different types of reasoning are simulated, including intersecting multiple pieces of evidence, bridging from one piece of evidence to another, and detecting unanswerable cases. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation on a variety of extractive question answering datasets ranging from single-hop to multi-hop and from text-only to table-only to hybrid that require various reasoning capabilities and show that ReasonBert achieves remarkable improvement over an array of strong baselines. Few-shot experiments further demonstrate that our pre-training method substantially improves sample efficiency.

ReasonBERT: Pre-trained to Reason with Distant Supervision

In order to simplify sentences, several rewriting operations can be performed such as replacing complex words per simpler synonyms, deleting unnecessary information, and splitting long sentences. Despite this multi-operation nature, evaluation of automatic simplification systems relies on metrics that moderately correlate with human judgements on the simplicity achieved by executing specific operations (e.g.\ simplicity gain based on lexical replacements). In this article, we investigate how well existing metrics can assess sentence-level simplifications where multiple operations may have been applied and which, therefore, require more general simplicity judgements. For that, we first collect a new and more reliable dataset for evaluating the correlation of metrics and human judgements of overall simplicity. Second, we conduct the first meta-evaluation of automatic metrics in Text Simplification, using our new dataset (and other existing data) to analyse the variation of the correlation between metrics' scores and human judgements across three dimensions: the perceived simplicity level, the system type and the set of references used for computation. We show that these three aspects affect the correlations and, in particular, highlight the limitations of commonly-used operation-specific metrics. Finally, based on our findings, we propose a set of recommendations for automatic evaluation of multi-operation simplifications, suggesting which metrics to compute and how to interpret their scores.

The (Un)Suitability of Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Text Simplification

Our goal, in the context of open-domain textual question-answering (QA), is to explain answers by showing the line of reasoning from what is known to the answer, rather than simply showing a fragment of textual evidence (a "rationale"). If this could be done, new opportunities for understanding and debugging the system’s reasoning become possible. Our approach is to generate explanations in the form of entailment trees, namely a tree of multipremise entailment steps from facts that are known, through intermediate conclusions, to the hypothesis of interest (namely the question + answer). To train a model with this skill, we created ENTAILMENTBANK , the first dataset to contain multistep entailment trees. Given a hypothesis (question + answer), we define three increasingly difficult explanation tasks: generate a valid entailment tree given (a) all relevant sentences (b) all relevant and some irrelevant sentences, or (c) a corpus. We show that a strong language model can partially solve these tasks, in particular when the relevant sentences are included in the input (e.g., 35% of trees for (a) are perfect), and with indications of generalization to other domains. This work is significant as it provides a new type of dataset (multistep entailments) and baselines, offering a new avenue for the community to generate richer, more systematic explanations.

Explaining Answers with Entailment Trees

Issues with coreference resolution are one of the most frequently mentioned challenges for information extraction from the biomedical literature. Thus, the biomedical genre has long been the second most researched genre for coreference resolution after the news domain, and the subject of a great deal of research for NLP in general. In recent years this interest has grown enormously leading to the development of a number of substantial datasets, of domain-specific contextual language models, and of several architectures. In this paper we review the state of-the-art of coreference in the biomedical domain with a particular attention on these most recent developments.

Coreference Resolution for the Biomedical Domain: A Survey

Most previous studies on information status (IS) classification and bridging anaphora recognition assume that the gold mention or syntactic tree information is given (Hou et al., 2013; Roesiger et al., 2018; Hou, 2020; Yu and Poesio, 2020). In this paper, we propose an end-to-end neural approach for information status classification. Our approach consists of a mention extraction component and an information status assignment component. During the inference time, our system takes a raw text as the input and generates mentions together with their information status. On the ISNotes corpus (Markert et al., 2012), we show that our information status assignment component achieves new state-of-the-art results on fine-grained IS classification based on gold mentions. Furthermore, our system performs significantly better than other baselines for both mention extraction and fine-grained IS classification in the end-to-end setting. Finally, we apply our system on BASHI (Roesiger, 2018) and SciCorp (Roesiger, 2016) to recognize referential bridging anaphora. We find that our end-to-end system trained on ISNotes achieves competitive results on bridging anaphora recognition compared to the previous state-of-the-art system that relies on syntactic information and is trained on the in-domain datasets (Yu and Poesio, 2020).

End-to-end Neural Information Status Classification

We introduce a new pretraining approach geared for multi-document language modeling, incorporating two key ideas into the masked language modeling self-supervised objective. First, instead of considering documents in isolation, we pretrain over sets of multiple related documents, encouraging the model to learn cross-document relationships. Second, we improve over recent long-range transformers by introducing dynamic global attention that has access to the entire input to predict masked tokens. We release CDLM (Cross-Document Language Model), a new general language model for multi-document setting that can be easily applied to downstream tasks. Our extensive analysis shows that both ideas are essential for the success of CDLM, and work in synergy to set new state-of-the-art results for several multi-text tasks.

CDLM: Cross-Document Language Modeling

Recent evidence supports a role for coreference processing in guiding human expectations about upcoming words during reading, based on covariation between reading times and word surprisal estimated by a coreference-aware semantic processing model (Jaffe et al., 2020). The present study reproduces and elaborates on this finding by (1) enabling the parser to process subword information that might better approximate human morphological knowledge, and (2) extending evaluation of coreference effects from self-paced reading to human brain imaging data. Results show that an expectation-based processing effect of coreference is still evident even in the presence of the stronger psycholinguistic baseline provided by the subword model, and that the coreference effect is observed in both self-paced reading and fMRI data, providing evidence of the effects' robustness.

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2021

We Need to Talk About train-dev-test Splits

Similar lecture

Do UD Trees Match Mention Spans in Coreference Annotations?

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2021

We Need to Talk About train-dev-test Splits

Similar lecture

Do UD Trees Match Mention Spans in Coreference Annotations?

Downloads