The SIGMORPHON 2020 Shared Task on Unsupervised Morphological Paradigm Completion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we describe the findings of the SIGMORPHON 2020 shared task on unsupervised morphological paradigm completion (SIGMORPHON 2020 Task 2), a novel task in the field of inflectional morphology. Participants were asked to submit systems which take raw text and a list of lemmas as input, and output all inflected forms, i.e., the entire morphological paradigm, of each lemma. In order to simulate a realistic use case, we first released data for 5 development languages. However, systems were officially evaluated on 9 surprise languages, which were only revealed a few days before the submission deadline. We provided a modular baseline system, which is a pipeline of 4 components. 3 teams submitted a total of 7 systems, but, surprisingly, none of the submitted systems was able to improve over the baseline on average over all 9 test languages. Only on 3 languages did a submitted system obtain the best results. This shows that unsupervised morphological paradigm completion is still largely unsolved. We present an analysis here, so that this shared task will ground further research on the topic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.030 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".