BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

David Vilares

David Vilares contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computation and LanguageMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Cross-lingual Inflection as a Data Augmentation Method for Parsing

We propose a morphology-based method for low-resource (LR) dependency parsing. We train a morphological inflector for target LR languages, and apply it to related rich-resource (RR) treebanks to create cross-lingual (x-inflected) treebanks that resemble the target LR language. We use such inflected treebanks to train parsers in zero- (training on x-inflected treebanks) and few-shot (training on x-inflected and target language treebanks) setups. The results show that the method sometimes improves the baselines, but not consistently.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

LyS_ACoruña at SemEval-2022 Task 10: Repurposing Off-the-Shelf Tools for Sentiment Analysis as Semantic Dependency Parsing

This paper addressed the problem of structured sentiment analysis using a bi-affine semantic dependency parser, large pre-trained language models, and publicly available translation models. For the monolingual setup, we considered: (i) training on a single treebank, and (ii) relaxing the setup by training on treebanks coming from different languages that can be adequately processed by cross-lingual language models. For the zero-shot setup and a given target treebank, we relied on: (i) a word-level translation of available treebanks in other languages to get noisy, unlikely-grammatical, but annotated data (we release as much of it as licenses allow), and (ii) merging those translated treebanks to obtain training data. In the post-evaluation phase, we also trained cross-lingual models that simply merged all the English treebanks and did not use word-level translations, and yet obtained better results. According to the official results, we ranked 8th and 9th in the monolingual and cross-lingual setups.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Fragility of Multi-Treebank Parsing Evaluation

Treebank selection for parsing evaluation and the spurious effects that might arise from a biased choice have not been explored in detail. This paper studies how evaluating on a single subset of treebanks can lead to weak conclusions. First, we take a few contrasting parsers, and run them on subsets of treebanks proposed in previous work, whose use was justified (or not) on criteria such as typology or data scarcity. Second, we run a large-scale version of this experiment, create vast amounts of random subsets of treebanks, and compare on them many parsers whose scores are available. The results show substantial variability across subsets and that although establishing guidelines for good treebank selection is hard, it is possible to detect potentially harmful strategies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Parsing as Pretraining

Recent analyses suggest that encoders pretrained for language modeling capture certain morpho-syntactic structure. However, probing frameworks for word vectors still do not report results on standard setups such as constituent and dependency parsing. This paper addresses this problem and does full parsing (on English) relying only on pretraining architectures -- and no decoding. We first cast constituent and dependency parsing as sequence tagging. We then use a single feed-forward layer to directly map word vectors to labels that encode a linearized tree. This is used to: (i) see how far we can reach on syntax modelling with just pretrained encoders, and (ii) shed some light about the syntax-sensitivity of different word vectors (by freezing the weights of the pretraining network during training). For evaluation, we use bracketing F1-score and LAS, and analyze in-depth differences across representations for span lengths and dependency displacements. The overall results surpass existing sequence tagging parsers on the PTB (93.5%) and end-to-end EN-EWT UD (78.8%).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Sequence Labeling Parsing by Learning Across Representations

We use parsing as sequence labeling as a common framework to learn across constituency and dependency syntactic abstractions. To do so, we cast the problem as multitask learning (MTL). First, we show that adding a parsing paradigm as an auxiliary loss consistently improves the performance on the other paradigm. Secondly, we explore an MTL sequence labeling model that parses both representations, at almost no cost in terms of performance and speed. The results across the board show that on average MTL models with auxiliary losses for constituency parsing outperform single-task ones by 1.14 F1 points, and for dependency parsing by 0.62 UAS points.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access