Modeling the parser state is key to good performance in transition-based parsing. Recurrent Neural Networks considerably improved the performance of transition-based systems by modelling the global state, e.g. stack-LSTM parsers, or local state modeling of contextualized features, e.g. Bi-LSTM parsers. Given the success of Transformer architectures in recent parsing systems, this work explores modifications of the sequence-to-sequence Transformer architecture to model either global or local parser states in transition-based parsing. We show that modifications of the cross attention mechanism of the Transformer considerably strengthen performance both on dependency and Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parsing tasks, particularly for smaller models or limited training data.
Humans can learn structural properties about a word from minimal experience, and deploy their learned syntactic representations uniformly in different grammatical contexts. We assess the ability of modern neural language models to reproduce this behavior in English and evaluate the effect of structural supervision on learning outcomes. First, we assess few-shot learning capabilities by developing controlled experiments that probe models' syntactic nominal number and verbal argument structure generalizations for tokens seen as few as two times during training. Second, we assess invariance properties of learned representation: the ability of a model to transfer syntactic generalizations from a base context (e.g., a simple declarative active-voice sentence) to a transformed context (e.g., an interrogative sentence). We test four models trained on the same dataset: an n-gram baseline, an LSTM, and two LSTM-variants trained with explicit structural supervision (Dyer et al.,2016; Charniak et al., 2016). We find that in most cases, the neural models are able to induce the proper syntactic generalizations after minimal exposure, often from just two examples during training, and that the two structurally supervised models generalize more accurately than the LSTM model. All neural models are able to leverage information learned in base contexts to drive expectations in transformed contexts, indicating that they have learned some invariance properties of syntax.
Event argument extraction (EAE) aims to identify the arguments of an event and classify the roles that those arguments play. Despite great efforts made in prior work, there remain many challenges: (1) Data scarcity. (2) Capturing the long-range dependency, specifically, the connection between an event trigger and a distant event argument. (3) Integrating event trigger information into candidate argument representation. For (1), we explore using unlabeled data in different ways. For (2), we propose to use a syntax-attending Transformer that can utilize dependency parses to guide the attention mechanism. For (3), we propose a trigger-aware sequence encoder with several types of trigger-dependent sequence representations. We also support argument extraction either from text annotated with gold entities or from plain text. Experiments on the English ACE2005 benchmark show that our approach achieves a new state-of-the-art.
In this paper, we propose a neural architecture and a set of training methods for ordering events by predicting temporal relations. Our proposed models receive a pair of events within a span of text as input and they identify temporal relations (Before, After, Equal, Vague) between them. Given that a key challenge with this task is the scarcity of annotated data, our models rely on either pretrained representations (i.e. RoBERTa, BERT or ELMo), transfer and multi-task learning (by leveraging complementary datasets), and self-training techniques. Experiments on the MATRES dataset of English documents establish a new state-of-the-art on this task.
Syntactic parsing using dependency structures has become a standard technique in natural language processing with many different parsing models, in particular data-driven models that can be trained on syntactically annotated corpora. In this paper, we tackle transition-based dependency parsing using a Perceptron Learner. Our proposed model, which adds more relevant features to the Perceptron Learner, outperforms a baseline arc-standard parser. We beat the UAS of the MALT and LSTM parsers. We also give possible ways to address parsing of non-projective trees.
Our work involves enriching the Stack-LSTM transition-based AMR parser (Ballesteros and Al-Onaizan, 2017) by augmenting training with Policy Learning and rewarding the Smatch score of sampled graphs. In addition, we also combined several AMR-to-text alignments with an attention mechanism and we supplemented the parser with pre-processed concept identification, named entities and contextualized embeddings. We achieve a highly competitive performance that is comparable to the best published results. We show an in-depth study ablating each of the new components of the parser
State-of-the-art LSTM language models trained on large corpora learn sequential contingencies in impressive detail and have been shown to acquire a number of non-local grammatical dependencies with some success. Here we investigate whether supervision with hierarchical structure enhances learning of a range of grammatical dependencies, a question that has previously been addressed only for subject-verb agreement. Using controlled experimental methods from psycholinguistics, we compare the performance of word-based LSTM models versus two models that represent hierarchical structure and deploy it in left-to-right processing: Recurrent Neural Network Grammars (RNNGs) (Dyer et al., 2016) and a incrementalized version of the Parsing-as-Language-Modeling configuration from Chariak et al., (2016). Models are tested on a diverse range of configurations for two classes of non-local grammatical dependencies in English---Negative Polarity licensing and Filler--Gap Dependencies. Using the same training data across models, we find that structurally-supervised models outperform the LSTM, with the RNNG demonstrating best results on both types of grammatical dependencies and even learning many of the Island Constraints on the filler--gap dependency. Structural supervision thus provides data efficiency advantages over purely string-based training of neural language models in acquiring human-like generalizations about non-local grammatical dependencies.
We deploy the methods of controlled psycholinguistic experimentation to shed light on the extent to which the behavior of neural network language models reflects incremental representations of syntactic state. To do so, we examine model behavior on artificial sentences containing a variety of syntactically complex structures. We test four models: two publicly available LSTM sequence models of English (Jozefowicz et al., 2016; Gulordava et al., 2018) trained on large datasets; an RNNG (Dyer et al., 2016) trained on a small, parsed dataset; and an LSTM trained on the same small corpus as the RNNG. We find evidence that the LSTMs trained on large datasets represent syntactic state over large spans of text in a way that is comparable to the RNNG, while the LSTM trained on the small dataset does not or does so only weakly.
The need for tree structure modelling on top of sequence modelling is an open issue in neural dependency parsing. We investigate the impact of adding a tree layer on top of a sequential model by recursively composing subtree representations (composition) in a transition-based parser that uses features extracted by a BiLSTM. Composition seems superfluous with such a model, suggesting that BiLSTMs capture information about subtrees. We perform model ablations to tease out the conditions under which composition helps. When ablating the backward LSTM, performance drops and composition does not recover much of the gap. When ablating the forward LSTM, performance drops less dramatically and composition recovers a substantial part of the gap, indicating that a forward LSTM and composition capture similar information. We take the backward LSTM to be related to lookahead features and the forward LSTM to the rich history-based features both crucial for transition-based parsers. To capture history-based information, composition is better than a forward LSTM on its own, but it is even better to have a forward LSTM as part of a BiLSTM. We correlate results with language properties, showing that the improved lookahead of a backward LSTM is especially important for head-final languages.