MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890328620 · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1097

Utilizing Character and Word Embeddings for Text Normalization with Sequence-to-Sequence Models

2018· article· en· W2890328620 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel Watson, Nasser Zalmout, Nizar Habash

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityNew York University Abu Dhabi
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processingNormalization (sociology)Artificial intelligenceWord (group theory)Artificial neural networkLanguage modelCharacter (mathematics)Recurrent neural networkTask (project management)Sequence (biology)ArabicLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Text normalization is an important enabling technology for several NLP tasks. Recently, neural-network-based approaches have outperformed well-established models in this task. However, in languages other than English, there has been little exploration in this direction. Both the scarcity of annotated data and the complexity of the language increase the difficulty of the problem. To address these challenges, we use a sequence-to-sequence model with character-based attention, which in addition to its self-learned character embeddings, uses word embeddings pre-trained with an approach that also models subword information. This provides the neural model with access to more linguistic information especially suitable for text normalization, without large parallel corpora. We show that providing the model with word-level features bridges the gap for the neural network approach to achieve a state-of-the-art F 1 score on a standard Arabic language correction shared task dataset.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207