Morphological annotation of Korean with Directly Maintainable Resources

This article describes an exclusively resource-based method of morphological annotation of written Korean text. Korean is an agglutinative language. Our annotator is designed to process text before the operation of a syntactic parser. In its present state, it annotates one-stem words only. The output is a graph of morphemes annotated with accurate linguistic information. The granularity of the tagset is 3 to 5 times higher than usual tagsets. A comparison with a reference annotated corpus showed that it achieves 89% recall without any corpus training. The language resources used by the system are lexicons of stems, transducers of suffixes and transducers of generation of allomorphs. All can be easily updated, which allows users to control the evolution of the performances of the system. It has been claimed that morphological annotation of Korean text could only be performed by a morphological analysis module accessing a lexicon of morphemes. We show that it can also be performed directly with a lexicon of words and without applying morphological rules at annotation time, which speeds up annotation to 1,210 word/s. The lexicon of words is obtained from the maintainable language resources through a fully automated compilation process

ON MONITORING LANGUAGE CHANGE WITH THE SUPPORT OF CORPUS PROCESSING

One of the fundamental characteristics of language is that it can change over time. One method to monitor the change is by observing its corpora: a structured language documentation. Recent development in technology, especially in the field of Natural Language Processing allows robust linguistic processing, which support the description of diverse historical changes of the corpora. The interference of human linguist is inevitable as it determines the gold standard, but computer assistance provides considerable support by incorporating computational approach in exploring the corpora, especially historical corpora. This paper proposes a model for corpus development, where corpus are annotated to support further computational operations such as lexicogrammatical pattern matching, automatic retrieval and extraction. The corpus processing operations are performed by local grammar based corpus processing software on a contemporary Indonesian corpus. This paper concludes that data collection and data processing in a corpus are equally crucial importance to monitor language change, and none can be set aside

A Survey on Awesome Korean NLP Datasets

English based datasets are commonly available from Kaggle, GitHub, or recently published papers. Although benchmark tests with English datasets are sufficient to show off the performances of new models and methods, still a researcher need to train and validate the models on Korean based datasets to produce a technology or product, suitable for Korean processing. This paper introduces 15 popular Korean based NLP datasets with summarized details such as volume, license, repositories, and other research results inspired by the datasets. Also, I provide high-resolution instructions with sample or statistics of datasets. The main characteristics of datasets are presented on a single table to provide a rapid summarization of datasets for researchers.Comment: 11 pages, 1 horizontal page for large tabl

Lexicons and grammars for language processing: industrial or handcrafted products?

Lexicon and Grammar: From Meanings to the Construction of SignificationDuring the recent years, the use of linguistic data for language processing (semantic ambiguityresolution, translation...) increased progressively. Such data are now commonly called languageresources. A few years ago, nearly all the language resources used for this purpose were collectionsof texts as the Brown Corpus and the Penn Treebank, but the use of electronic lexicons (WordNet,FrameNet, VerbNet, ComLex, Lexicon-Grammar...) and formal grammars (TAG...) developed recently. Thisdevelopment is slow because most processes of construction of lexicons and grammars aremanual, whereas the construction of corpora has always been highly automated.However, more and more specialists of language processing realize that the information content oflexicons and grammars is richer than that of corpora, and hence the former make more elaborateprocessing possible. The difference in construction time is likely to be connected with thedifference in information content: the handcrafting of lexicons and grammars by linguists wouldmake them more informative than automatically generated data.This situation can evolve into two directions: either specialists of language technology getprogressively used to handling manually constructed resources, which are more informative andmore complex, or the process of construction of lexicons and grammars is automated andindustrialized, which is the mainstream perspective. Both evolutions are already in progress, and atension exists between them. The relation between linguists and computer scientists depends on thefuture of these evolutions, since the first implies training and hiring numerous linguists, whereasthe other depends essentially on solutions elaborated by computer engineers.The aim of this article is to analyse practical examples of the language resources in question, andto discuss about which of the two trends, handcrafting or generating industrially, or a combinationof both, can give the best results or is the most realistic.L'utilisation de données linguistiques pour le traitement des langues : levée d'ambiguïtés sémantiques, traduction... a augmenté progressivement au cours des dernières années. De telles données sont communément appelées ressources linguistiques. Il y a quelques années, presque toutes les ressources linguistiques exploitées pour ce type d'usage étaient des collections de textes telles que le Corpus de Brown et le Corpus arboré de Penn, mais l'utilisation de lexiques électroniques (WordNet, FrameNet, VerbNet, ComLex, Lexique-Grammaire...) et de grammaires formelles (grammaires d'adjonction d'arbres...) s'est développé depuis. Cet essor est lent, car la plupart des processus de construction de lexiques et de grammaires sont manuels, alors que la construction de corpus a été très tôt en grande partie automatisée. Cependant, de plus en plus de spécialistes du traitement des langues jugent le contenu informatif des lexiques et des grammaires plus riche que celui des corpus, ce qui ouvre la possibilité de traitements plus élaborés. La différence dans la durée de construction de ces deux types de ressources est sans doute liée à la différence de richesse du contenu informatif : la construction artisanale de lexiques et de grammaires par les linguistes les rendrait plus informatifs que des données engendrées automatiquement.Cette situation peut évoluer dans deux directions : ou les spécialistes de technologie linguistique se familiarisent progressivement avec la manipulation de ressources construites manuellement, plus informatives et plus complexes, ou les processus de construction de lexiques et de grammaires sont automatisés et industrialisés, ce qui est la perspective la plus répandue.Les deux évolutions sont déjà à l'œuvre, et il existe une tension entre elles deux. Les relations entre linguistes et informaticiens dépendent du futur de ces évolutions, puisque celle-là suppose la formation et le recrutement de nombreux linguistes, alors que celle-ci dépend essentiellement de solutions élaborées par des ingénieurs de l'informatique.Le but de cet article est d'analyser des exemples pratiques des ressources linguistiques en question, et de discuter sur la question de savoir laquelle des deux tendances, l'artisanale ou l'industrielle, ou une combinaison des deux, pourrait donner les meilleurs résultats ou s'avérer la plus réaliste

A Universal Part-of-Speech Tagset

To facilitate future research in unsupervised induction of syntactic structure and to standardize best-practices, we propose a tagset that consists of twelve universal part-of-speech categories. In addition to the tagset, we develop a mapping from 25 different treebank tagsets to this universal set. As a result, when combined with the original treebank data, this universal tagset and mapping produce a dataset consisting of common parts-of-speech for 22 different languages. We highlight the use of this resource via two experiments, including one that reports competitive accuracies for unsupervised grammar induction without gold standard part-of-speech tags

한국어 사전학습모델 구축과 확장 연구: 감정분석을 중심으로

학위논문 (박사) -- 서울대학교 대학원 : 인문대학 언어학과, 2021. 2. 신효필.Recently, as interest in the Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) model has increased, many studies have also been actively conducted in Natural Language Processing based on the model. Such sentence-level contextualized embedding models are generally known to capture and model lexical, syntactic, and semantic information in sentences during training. Therefore, such models, including ELMo, GPT, and BERT, function as a universal model that can impressively perform a wide range of NLP tasks. This study proposes a monolingual BERT model trained based on Korean texts. The first released BERT model that can handle the Korean language was Google Research’s multilingual BERT (M-BERT), which was constructed with training data and a vocabulary composed of 104 languages, including Korean and English, and can handle the text of any language contained in the single model. However, despite the advantages of multilingualism, this model does not fully reflect each language’s characteristics, so that its text processing performance in each language is lower than that of a monolingual model. While mitigating those shortcomings, we built monolingual models using the training data and a vocabulary organized to better capture Korean texts’ linguistic knowledge. Therefore, in this study, a model named KR-BERT was built using training data composed of Korean Wikipedia text and news articles, and was released through GitHub so that it could be used for processing Korean texts. Additionally, we trained a KR-BERT-MEDIUM model based on expanded data by adding comments and legal texts to the training data of KR-BERT. Each model used a list of tokens composed mainly of Hangul characters as its vocabulary, organized using WordPiece algorithms based on the corresponding training data. These models reported competent performances in various Korean NLP tasks such as Named Entity Recognition, Question Answering, Semantic Textual Similarity, and Sentiment Analysis. In addition, we added sentiment features to the BERT model to specialize it to better function in sentiment analysis. We constructed a sentiment-combined model including sentiment features, where the features consist of polarity and intensity values assigned to each token in the training data corresponding to that of Korean Sentiment Analysis Corpus (KOSAC). The sentiment features assigned to each token compose polarity and intensity embeddings and are infused to the basic BERT input embeddings. The sentiment-combined model is constructed by training the BERT model with these embeddings. We trained a model named KR-BERT-KOSAC that contains sentiment features while maintaining the same training data, vocabulary, and model configurations as KR-BERT and distributed it through GitHub. Then we analyzed the effects of using sentiment features in comparison to KR-BERT by observing their performance in language modeling during the training process and sentiment analysis tasks. Additionally, we determined how much each of the polarity and intensity features contributes to improving the model performance by separately organizing a model that utilizes each of the features, respectively. We obtained some increase in language modeling and sentiment analysis performances by using both the sentiment features, compared to other models with different feature composition. Here, we included the problems of binary positivity classification of movie reviews and hate speech detection on offensive comments as the sentiment analysis tasks. On the other hand, training these embedding models requires a lot of training time and hardware resources. Therefore, this study proposes a simple model fusing method that requires relatively little time. We trained a smaller-scaled sentiment-combined model consisting of a smaller number of encoder layers and attention heads and smaller hidden sizes for a few steps, combining it with an existing pre-trained BERT model. Since those pre-trained models are expected to function universally to handle various NLP problems based on good language modeling, this combination will allow two models with different advantages to interact and have better text processing capabilities. In this study, experiments on sentiment analysis problems have confirmed that combining the two models is efficient in training time and usage of hardware resources, while it can produce more accurate predictions than single models that do not include sentiment features.최근 트랜스포머 양방향 인코더 표현 (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers, BERT) 모델에 대한 관심이 높아지면서 자연어처리 분야에서 이에 기반한 연구 역시 활발히 이루어지고 있다. 이러한 문장 단위의 임베딩을 위한 모델들은 보통 학습 과정에서 문장 내 어휘, 통사, 의미 정보를 포착하여 모델링한다고 알려져 있다. 따라서 ELMo, GPT, BERT 등은 그 자체가 다양한 자연어처리 문제를 해결할 수 있는 보편적인 모델로서 기능한다. 본 연구는 한국어 자료로 학습한 단일 언어 BERT 모델을 제안한다. 가장 먼저 공개된 한국어를 다룰 수 있는 BERT 모델은 Google Research의 multilingual BERT (M-BERT)였다. 이는 한국어와 영어를 포함하여 104개 언어로 구성된 학습 데이터와 어휘 목록을 가지고 학습한 모델이며, 모델 하나로 포함된 모든 언어의 텍스트를 처리할 수 있다. 그러나 이는 그 다중언어성이 갖는 장점에도 불구하고, 각 언어의 특성을 충분히 반영하지 못하여 단일 언어 모델보다 각 언어의 텍스트 처리 성능이 낮다는 단점을 보인다. 본 연구는 그러한 단점들을 완화하면서 텍스트에 포함되어 있는 언어 정보를 보다 잘 포착할 수 있도록 구성된 데이터와 어휘 목록을 이용하여 모델을 구축하고자 하였다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 한국어 Wikipedia 텍스트와 뉴스 기사로 구성된 데이터를 이용하여 KR-BERT 모델을 구현하고, 이를 GitHub을 통해 공개하여 한국어 정보처리를 위해 사용될 수 있도록 하였다. 또한 해당 학습 데이터에 댓글 데이터와 법조문과 판결문을 덧붙여 확장한 텍스트에 기반해서 다시 KR-BERT-MEDIUM 모델을 학습하였다. 이 모델은 해당 학습 데이터로부터 WordPiece 알고리즘을 이용해 구성한 한글 중심의 토큰 목록을 사전으로 이용하였다. 이들 모델은 개체명 인식, 질의응답, 문장 유사도 판단, 감정 분석 등의 다양한 한국어 자연어처리 문제에 적용되어 우수한 성능을 보고했다. 또한 본 연구에서는 BERT 모델에 감정 자질을 추가하여 그것이 감정 분석에 특화된 모델로서 확장된 기능을 하도록 하였다. 감정 자질을 포함하여 별도의 임베딩 모델을 학습시켰는데, 이때 감정 자질은 문장 내의 각 토큰에 한국어 감정 분석 코퍼스 (KOSAC)에 대응하는 감정 극성(polarity)과 강도(intensity) 값을 부여한 것이다. 각 토큰에 부여된 자질은 그 자체로 극성 임베딩과 강도 임베딩을 구성하고, BERT가 기본으로 하는 토큰 임베딩에 더해진다. 이렇게 만들어진 임베딩을 학습한 것이 감정 자질 모델(sentiment-combined model)이 된다. KR-BERT와 같은 학습 데이터와 모델 구성을 유지하면서 감정 자질을 결합한 모델인 KR-BERT-KOSAC를 구현하고, 이를 GitHub을 통해 배포하였다. 또한 그로부터 학습 과정 내 언어 모델링과 감정 분석 과제에서의 성능을 얻은 뒤 KR-BERT와 비교하여 감정 자질 추가의 효과를 살펴보았다. 또한 감정 자질 중 극성과 강도 값을 각각 적용한 모델을 별도 구성하여 각 자질이 모델 성능 향상에 얼마나 기여하는지도 확인하였다. 이를 통해 두 가지 감정 자질을 모두 추가한 경우에, 그렇지 않은 다른 모델들에 비하여 언어 모델링이나 감정 분석 문제에서 성능이 어느 정도 향상되는 것을 관찰할 수 있었다. 이때 감정 분석 문제로는 영화평의 긍부정 여부 분류와 댓글의 악플 여부 분류를 포함하였다. 그런데 위와 같은 임베딩 모델을 사전학습하는 것은 많은 시간과 하드웨어 등의 자원을 요구한다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 비교적 적은 시간과 자원을 사용하는 간단한 모델 결합 방법을 제시한다. 적은 수의 인코더 레이어, 어텐션 헤드, 적은 임베딩 차원 수로 구성한 감정 자질 모델을 적은 스텝 수까지만 학습하고, 이를 기존에 큰 규모로 사전학습되어 있는 임베딩 모델과 결합한다. 기존의 사전학습모델에는 충분한 언어 모델링을 통해 다양한 언어 처리 문제를 처리할 수 있는 보편적인 기능이 기대되므로, 이러한 결합은 서로 다른 장점을 갖는 두 모델이 상호작용하여 더 우수한 자연어처리 능력을 갖도록 할 것이다. 본 연구에서는 감정 분석 문제들에 대한 실험을 통해 두 가지 모델의 결합이 학습 시간에 있어 효율적이면서도, 감정 자질을 더하지 않은 모델보다 더 정확한 예측을 할 수 있다는 것을 확인하였다.1 Introduction 1 1.1 Objectives 3 1.2 Contribution 9 1.3 Dissertation Structure 10 2 Related Work 13 2.1 Language Modeling and the Attention Mechanism 13 2.2 BERT-based Models 16 2.2.1 BERT and Variation Models 16 2.2.2 Korean-Specific BERT Models 19 2.2.3 Task-Specific BERT Models 22 2.3 Sentiment Analysis 24 2.4 Chapter Summary 30 3 BERT Architecture and Evaluations 33 3.1 Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) 33 3.1.1 Transformers and the Multi-Head Self-Attention Mechanism 34 3.1.2 Tokenization and Embeddings of BERT 39 3.1.3 Training and Fine-Tuning BERT 42 3.2 Evaluation of BERT 47 3.2.1 NLP Tasks 47 3.2.2 Metrics 50 3.3 Chapter Summary 52 4 Pre-Training of Korean BERT-based Model 55 4.1 The Need for a Korean Monolingual Model 55 4.2 Pre-Training Korean-specific BERT Model 58 4.3 Chapter Summary 70 5 Performances of Korean-Specific BERT Models 71 5.1 Task Datasets 71 5.1.1 Named Entity Recognition 71 5.1.2 Question Answering 73 5.1.3 Natural Language Inference 74 5.1.4 Semantic Textual Similarity 78 5.1.5 Sentiment Analysis 80 5.2 Experiments 81 5.2.1 Experiment Details 81 5.2.2 Task Results 83 5.3 Chapter Summary 89 6 An Extended Study to Sentiment Analysis 91 6.1 Sentiment Features 91 6.1.1 Sources of Sentiment Features 91 6.1.2 Assigning Prior Sentiment Values 94 6.2 Composition of Sentiment Embeddings 103 6.3 Training the Sentiment-Combined Model 109 6.4 Effect of Sentiment Features 113 6.5 Chapter Summary 121 7 Combining Two BERT Models 123 7.1 External Fusing Method 123 7.2 Experiments and Results 130 7.3 Chapter Summary 135 8 Conclusion 137 8.1 Summary of Contribution and Results 138 8.1.1 Construction of Korean Pre-trained BERT Models 138 8.1.2 Construction of a Sentiment-Combined Model 138 8.1.3 External Fusing of Two Pre-Trained Models to Gain Performance and Cost Advantages 139 8.2 Future Directions and Open Problems 140 8.2.1 More Training of KR-BERT-MEDIUM for Convergence of Performance 140 8.2.2 Observation of Changes Depending on the Domain of Training Data 141 8.2.3 Overlap of Sentiment Features with Linguistic Knowledge that BERT Learns 142 8.2.4 The Specific Process of Sentiment Features Helping the Language Modeling of BERT is Unknown 143 Bibliography 145 Appendices 157 A. Python Sources 157 A.1 Construction of Polarity and Intensity Embeddings 157 A.2 External Fusing of Different Pre-Trained Models 158 B. Examples of Experiment Outputs 162 C. Model Releases through GitHub 165Docto