Exploiting Syntactic Structure for Better Language Modeling: A Syntactic Distance Approach (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | incorporating syntactic structure into language models has been a challenge since the 1990s. |
| Approach: | They propose to use syntactic information to integrate syntastic structure into neural language models by providing ground truth parse trees as additional training signals. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves lower perplexity and better quality when ground truth parse trees are provided as training signals. |
Similar Papers
Overestimation of Syntactic Representation in Neural Language Models (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Several testing methodologies have been developed to probe models’ syntactic representations. |
| Approach: | They propose a method to determine syntactic structure by training a model on strings generated according to a template and testing its ability to distinguish between similar ones with different syntax. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method reproduces positive results with two non-syntactic baseline language models: an n-gram model and an LSTM model trained on scrambled inputs. |
Incorporating Contextual and Syntactic Structures Improves Semantic Similarity Modeling (D19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Semantic similarity modeling is central to many NLP problems such as question answering. |
| Approach: | They propose a pairwise word interaction model with syntactic structure priors to explore their effectiveness. |
| Outcome: | Extensive evaluations on eight benchmark datasets show that incorporating structural information improves over strong baselines. |
Improving Neural Machine Translation with Neural Syntactic Distance (N19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Neural syntactic distance (NSD) is used to represent constituent trees using a sequence whose length is identical to the number of words in the sentence. |
| Approach: | They propose five strategies to improve NMT with explicit use of syntactic information . et al., 2014) propose a set of five strategies that incorporate syntastic information into the encoder and/or decoder of the baseline model. |
| Outcome: | The proposed strategies improve translation performance of the baseline model (+2.1 (En–Ja), +1.3 (Ja–En), +1.2 (En-Ch), and +1.0 (Ch–En) BLEU. |
Linguistic Frameworks Go Toe-to-Toe at Neuro-Symbolic Language Modeling (2022.naacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models of language understanding are based on explicit representations of hierarchical structure, but there are good reasons to doubt that they can be said to understand language in any meaningful way. |
| Approach: | They examine whether syntactic and semantic graph representations can complement and improve neural language modeling. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms pretrained models on English WSJ in perplexity and other metrics. |
What if This Modified That? Syntactic Interventions with Counterfactual Embeddings (2021.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Prior art aims to uncover meaningful properties within model representations, but it is unclear how faithfully such probes portray information that the models actually use. |
| Approach: | They propose a technique for generating counterfactual embeddings within models . they produce evidence that some models use a tree-distancelike representation of syntax . |
| Outcome: | The proposed technique produces evidence that some models use tree-distancelike representations of syntax in downstream prediction tasks. |
Improving Text Understanding via Deep Syntax-Semantics Communication (2020.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies show that integrating syntactic tree models with sequential semantic models can bring improved task performance. |
| Approach: | They propose a deep neural communication model between syntax and semantics to improve the performance of text understanding. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms baseline models on syntax-dependent tasks by a large margin. |
Straight to the Tree: Constituency Parsing with Neural Syntactic Distance (P18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Compared to traditional shift-reduce parsing schemes, our approach is free from the potentially disastrous compounding error. |
| Approach: | They propose a model that predicts a scalar for each split position in a sentence and then determines the topology of grammar tree based on syntactic distances. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves the state-of-the-art single model F1 score of 92.1 on PTB and 86.4 on CTB dataset, surpassing the previous single model results by a large margin. |
A Tree-based Decoder for Neural Machine Translation (D18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on adding syntactic information to NMT systems is limited to linguistically-inspired tree structures. |
| Approach: | They propose an NMT model that can naturally generate the topology of an arbitrary tree structure on the target side. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms standard seq2seq models by 2.1 BLEU points and other methods for incorporating target-side syntax by 0.7 BLUE points. |
How to represent a word and predict it, too: Improving tied architectures for language modelling (D18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent state-of-the-art models use word embeddings as input and output mappings instead of tied models. |
| Approach: | They propose to decouple hidden state from word embedding prediction . they extend their proposed modification to word2vec models . |
| Outcome: | The proposed architectures achieve comparable or better results compared to previous models without tying . the proposed architecture reduces parameters, enabling more compact models and faster learning. |
A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Models (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on syntactic knowledge models has not provided a clear picture of the properties required to produce proper syntaktic generalizations. |
| Approach: | They propose to evaluate syntactic knowledge of language models by varying model architectures . they find substantial differences in syntaktic generalization performance by model architecture . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model architectures outperform other architectures on a set of 34 English-language syntactic test suites. |