mwe identification
MWE as WSD: Solving Multiword Expression Identification with Word Sense Disambiguation
Tanner, Joshua, Hoffman, Jacob
Recent approaches to word sense disambiguation (WSD) utilize encodings of the sense gloss (definition), in addition to the input context, to improve performance. In this work we demonstrate that this approach can be adapted for use in multiword expression (MWE) identification by training models which use gloss and context information to filter MWE candidates produced by a rule-based extraction pipeline. Our approach substantially improves precision, outperforming the state-of-the-art in MWE identification on the DiMSUM dataset by up to 1.9 F1 points and achieving competitive results on the PARSEME 1.1 English dataset. Our models also retain most of their WSD performance, showing that a single model can be used for both tasks. Finally, building on similar approaches using Bi-encoders for WSD, we introduce a novel Poly-encoder architecture which improves MWE identification performance.
Multilingual Multiword Expression Identification Using Lateral Inhibition and Domain Adaptation
Avram, Andrei-Marius, Mititelu, Verginica Barbu, Păiş, Vasile, Cercel, Dumitru-Clementin, Trăuşan-Matu, Ştefan
Correctly identifying multiword expressions (MWEs) is an important task for most natural language processing systems since their misidentification can result in ambiguity and misunderstanding of the underlying text. In this work, we evaluate the performance of the mBERT model for MWE identification in a multilingual context by training it on all 14 languages available in version 1.2 of the PARSEME corpus. We also incorporate lateral inhibition and language adversarial training into our methodology to create language-independent embeddings and improve its capabilities in identifying multiword expressions. The evaluation of our models shows that the approach employed in this work achieves better results compared to the best system of the PARSEME 1.2 competition, MTLB-STRUCT, on 11 out of 14 languages for global MWE identification and on 12 out of 14 languages for unseen MWE identification. Additionally, averaged across all languages, our best approach outperforms the MTLB-STRUCT system by 1.23% on global MWE identification and by 4.73% on unseen global MWE identification.