scholarly journals To Augment or Not to Augment? A Comparative Study on Text Augmentation Techniques for Low-Resource NLP

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-38
Author(s):  
Gözde Gül Şahin

Abstract Data-hungry deep neural networks have established themselves as the defacto standard for many NLP tasks including the traditional sequence tagging ones. Despite their state-of-the-art performance on high-resource languages, they still fall behind of their statistical counter-parts in low-resource scenarios. One methodology to counter attack this problem is text augmentation, i.e., generating new synthetic training data points from existing data. Although NLP has recently witnessed a load of textual augmentation techniques, the field still lacks a systematic performance analysis on a diverse set of languages and sequence tagging tasks. To fill this gap, we investigate three categories of text augmentation methodologies which perform changes on the syntax (e.g., cropping sub-sentences), token (e.g., random word insertion) and character (e.g., character swapping) levels.We systematically compare the methods on part-of-speech tagging, dependency parsing and semantic role labeling for a diverse set of language families using various models including the architectures that rely on pretrained multilingual contextualized language models such as mBERT. Augmentation most significantly improves dependency parsing, followed by part-of-speech tagging and semantic role labeling. We find the experimented techniques to be effective on morphologically rich languages in general rather than analytic languages such as Vietnamese. Our results suggest that the augmentation techniques can further improve over strong baselines based on mBERT, especially for dependency parsing. We identify the character-level methods as the most consistent performers, while synonym replacement and syntactic augmenters provide inconsistent improvements. Finally, we discuss that the results most heavily depend on the task, language pair (e.g., syntactic-level techniques mostly benefit higher-level tasks and morphologically richer languages), and the model type (e.g., token-level augmentation provide significant improvements for BPE, while character-level ones give generally higher scores for char and mBERT based models).

Author(s):  
Željko Agić ◽  
Anders Johannsen ◽  
Barbara Plank ◽  
Héctor Martínez Alonso ◽  
Natalie Schluter ◽  
...  

We propose a novel approach to cross-lingual part-of-speech tagging and dependency parsing for truly low-resource languages. Our annotation projection-based approach yields tagging and parsing models for over 100 languages. All that is needed are freely available parallel texts, and taggers and parsers for resource-rich languages. The empirical evaluation across 30 test languages shows that our method consistently provides top-level accuracies, close to established upper bounds, and outperforms several competitive baselines.


Author(s):  
Bernd Bohnet ◽  
Joakim Nivre ◽  
Igor Boguslavsky ◽  
Richárd Farkas ◽  
Filip Ginter ◽  
...  

Joint morphological and syntactic analysis has been proposed as a way of improving parsing accuracy for richly inflected languages. Starting from a transition-based model for joint part-of-speech tagging and dependency parsing, we explore different ways of integrating morphological features into the model. We also investigate the use of rule-based morphological analyzers to provide hard or soft lexical constraints and the use of word clusters to tackle the sparsity of lexical features. Evaluation on five morphologically rich languages (Czech, Finnish, German, Hungarian, and Russian) shows consistent improvements in both morphological and syntactic accuracy for joint prediction over a pipeline model, with further improvements thanks to lexical constraints and word clusters. The final results improve the state of the art in dependency parsing for all languages.


Author(s):  
Atro Voutilainen

This article outlines the recently used methods for designing part-of-speech taggers; computer programs for assigning contextually appropriate grammatical descriptors to words in texts. It begins with the description of general architecture and task setting. It gives an overview of the history of tagging and describes the central approaches to tagging. These approaches are: taggers based on handwritten local rules, taggers based on n-grams automatically derived from text corpora, taggers based on hidden Markov models, taggers using automatically generated symbolic language models derived using methods from machine tagging, taggers based on handwritten global rules, and hybrid taggers, which combine the advantages of handwritten and automatically generated taggers. This article focuses on handwritten tagging rules. Well-tagged training corpora are a valuable resource for testing and improving language model. The text corpus reminds the grammarian about any oversight while designing a rule.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document