Token and Type Constraints for Cross-Lingual Part-of-Speech Tagging

We consider the construction of part-of-speech taggers for resource-poor languages. Recently, manually constructed tag dictionaries from Wiktionary and dictionaries projected via bitext have been used as type constraints to overcome the scarcity of annotated data in this setting. In this paper, we show that additional token constraints can be projected from a resource-rich source language to a resource-poor target language via word-aligned bitext. We present several models to this end; in particular a partially observed conditional random field model, where coupled token and type constraints provide a partial signal for training. Averaged across eight previously studied Indo-European languages, our model achieves a 25% relative error reduction over the prior state of the art. We further present successful results on seven additional languages from different families, empirically demonstrating the applicability of coupled token and type constraints across a diverse set of languages

Model Transfer for Tagging Low-resource Languages using a Bilingual Dictionary

Cross-lingual model transfer is a compelling and popular method for predicting annotations in a low-resource language, whereby parallel corpora provide a bridge to a high-resource language and its associated annotated corpora. However, parallel data is not readily available for many languages, limiting the applicability of these approaches. We address these drawbacks in our framework which takes advantage of cross-lingual word embeddings trained solely on a high coverage bilingual dictionary. We propose a novel neural network model for joint training from both sources of data based on cross-lingual word embeddings, and show substantial empirical improvements over baseline techniques. We also propose several active learning heuristics, which result in improvements over competitive benchmark methods.Comment: 5 pages with 2 pages reference. Accepted to appear in ACL 201

Cross-lingual Argumentation Mining: Machine Translation (and a bit of Projection) is All You Need!

Argumentation mining (AM) requires the identification of complex discourse structures and has lately been applied with success monolingually. In this work, we show that the existing resources are, however, not adequate for assessing cross-lingual AM, due to their heterogeneity or lack of complexity. We therefore create suitable parallel corpora by (human and machine) translating a popular AM dataset consisting of persuasive student essays into German, French, Spanish, and Chinese. We then compare (i) annotation projection and (ii) bilingual word embeddings based direct transfer strategies for cross-lingual AM, finding that the former performs considerably better and almost eliminates the loss from cross-lingual transfer. Moreover, we find that annotation projection works equally well when using either costly human or cheap machine translations. Our code and data are available at \url{http://github.com/UKPLab/coling2018-xling_argument_mining}.Comment: Accepted at Coling 201

Marrying Universal Dependencies and Universal Morphology

The Universal Dependencies (UD) and Universal Morphology (UniMorph) projects each present schemata for annotating the morphosyntactic details of language. Each project also provides corpora of annotated text in many languages - UD at the token level and UniMorph at the type level. As each corpus is built by different annotators, language-specific decisions hinder the goal of universal schemata. With compatibility of tags, each project's annotations could be used to validate the other's. Additionally, the availability of both type- and token-level resources would be a boon to tasks such as parsing and homograph disambiguation. To ease this interoperability, we present a deterministic mapping from Universal Dependencies v2 features into the UniMorph schema. We validate our approach by lookup in the UniMorph corpora and find a macro-average of 64.13% recall. We also note incompatibilities due to paucity of data on either side. Finally, we present a critical evaluation of the foundations, strengths, and weaknesses of the two annotation projects.Comment: UDW1