Alert button
Picture for Brian Leonard

Brian Leonard

Alert button

UniMorph 4.0: Universal Morphology

May 10, 2022
Khuyagbaatar Batsuren, Omer Goldman, Salam Khalifa, Nizar Habash, Witold Kieraś, Gábor Bella, Brian Leonard, Garrett Nicolai, Kyle Gorman, Yustinus Ghanggo Ate, Maria Ryskina, Sabrina J. Mielke, Elena Budianskaya, Charbel El-Khaissi, Tiago Pimentel, Michael Gasser, William Lane, Mohit Raj, Matt Coler, Jaime Rafael Montoya Samame, Delio Siticonatzi Camaiteri, Esaú Zumaeta Rojas, Didier López Francis, Arturo Oncevay, Juan López Bautista, Gema Celeste Silva Villegas, Lucas Torroba Hennigen, Adam Ek, David Guriel, Peter Dirix, Jean-Philippe Bernardy, Andrey Scherbakov, Aziyana Bayyr-ool, Antonios Anastasopoulos, Roberto Zariquiey, Karina Sheifer, Sofya Ganieva, Hilaria Cruz, Ritván Karahóǧa, Stella Markantonatou, George Pavlidis, Matvey Plugaryov, Elena Klyachko, Ali Salehi, Candy Angulo, Jatayu Baxi, Andrew Krizhanovsky, Natalia Krizhanovskaya, Elizabeth Salesky, Clara Vania, Sardana Ivanova, Jennifer White, Rowan Hall Maudslay, Josef Valvoda, Ran Zmigrod, Paula Czarnowska, Irene Nikkarinen, Aelita Salchak, Brijesh Bhatt, Christopher Straughn, Zoey Liu, Jonathan North Washington, Yuval Pinter, Duygu Ataman, Marcin Wolinski, Totok Suhardijanto, Anna Yablonskaya, Niklas Stoehr, Hossep Dolatian, Zahroh Nuriah, Shyam Ratan, Francis M. Tyers, Edoardo M. Ponti, Grant Aiton, Aryaman Arora, Richard J. Hatcher, Ritesh Kumar, Jeremiah Young, Daria Rodionova, Anastasia Yemelina, Taras Andrushko, Igor Marchenko, Polina Mashkovtseva, Alexandra Serova, Emily Prud'hommeaux, Maria Nepomniashchaya, Fausto Giunchiglia, Eleanor Chodroff, Mans Hulden, Miikka Silfverberg, Arya D. McCarthy, David Yarowsky, Ryan Cotterell, Reut Tsarfaty, Ekaterina Vylomova

Figure 1 for UniMorph 4.0: Universal Morphology
Figure 2 for UniMorph 4.0: Universal Morphology
Figure 3 for UniMorph 4.0: Universal Morphology
Figure 4 for UniMorph 4.0: Universal Morphology

The Universal Morphology (UniMorph) project is a collaborative effort providing broad-coverage instantiated normalized morphological inflection tables for hundreds of diverse world languages. The project comprises two major thrusts: a language-independent feature schema for rich morphological annotation and a type-level resource of annotated data in diverse languages realizing that schema. This paper presents the expansions and improvements made on several fronts over the last couple of years (since McCarthy et al. (2020)). Collaborative efforts by numerous linguists have added 67 new languages, including 30 endangered languages. We have implemented several improvements to the extraction pipeline to tackle some issues, e.g. missing gender and macron information. We have also amended the schema to use a hierarchical structure that is needed for morphological phenomena like multiple-argument agreement and case stacking, while adding some missing morphological features to make the schema more inclusive. In light of the last UniMorph release, we also augmented the database with morpheme segmentation for 16 languages. Lastly, this new release makes a push towards inclusion of derivational morphology in UniMorph by enriching the data and annotation schema with instances representing derivational processes from MorphyNet.

* LREC 2022; The first two authors made equal contributions 
Viaarxiv icon

Distinct patterns of syntactic agreement errors in recurrent networks and humans

Jul 18, 2018
Tal Linzen, Brian Leonard

Figure 1 for Distinct patterns of syntactic agreement errors in recurrent networks and humans
Figure 2 for Distinct patterns of syntactic agreement errors in recurrent networks and humans
Figure 3 for Distinct patterns of syntactic agreement errors in recurrent networks and humans
Figure 4 for Distinct patterns of syntactic agreement errors in recurrent networks and humans

Determining the correct form of a verb in context requires an understanding of the syntactic structure of the sentence. Recurrent neural networks have been shown to perform this task with an error rate comparable to humans, despite the fact that they are not designed with explicit syntactic representations. To examine the extent to which the syntactic representations of these networks are similar to those used by humans when processing sentences, we compare the detailed pattern of errors that RNNs and humans make on this task. Despite significant similarities (attraction errors, asymmetry between singular and plural subjects), the error patterns differed in important ways. In particular, in complex sentences with relative clauses error rates increased in RNNs but decreased in humans. Furthermore, RNNs showed a cumulative effect of attractors but humans did not. We conclude that at least in some respects the syntactic representations acquired by RNNs are fundamentally different from those used by humans.

* Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 
Viaarxiv icon

Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution

Apr 25, 2018
Rachel Rudinger, Jason Naradowsky, Brian Leonard, Benjamin Van Durme

Figure 1 for Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution
Figure 2 for Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution
Figure 3 for Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution
Figure 4 for Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution

We present an empirical study of gender bias in coreference resolution systems. We first introduce a novel, Winograd schema-style set of minimal pair sentences that differ only by pronoun gender. With these "Winogender schemas," we evaluate and confirm systematic gender bias in three publicly-available coreference resolution systems, and correlate this bias with real-world and textual gender statistics.

* Accepted to NAACL-HLT 2018 
Viaarxiv icon