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

Timothy J. O'Donnell

Timothy J. O'Donnell contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computation and LanguageInformation Theorymath.IT

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
3topics
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

6 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Characterizing Idioms: Conventionality and Contingency

Idioms are unlike most phrases in two important ways. First, the words in an idiom have non-canonical meanings. Second, the non-canonical meanings of words in an idiom are contingent on the presence of other words in the idiom. Linguistic theories differ on whether these properties depend on one another, as well as whether special theoretical machinery is needed to accommodate idioms. We define two measures that correspond to the properties above, and we implement them using BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) and XLNet(Yang et al., 2019). We show that idioms fall at the expected intersection of the two dimensions, but that the dimensions themselves are not correlated. Our results suggest that special machinery to handle idioms may not be warranted.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Compositional Generalization in Dependency Parsing

Compositionality -- the ability to combine familiar units like words into novel phrases and sentences -- has been the focus of intense interest in artificial intelligence in recent years. To test compositional generalization in semantic parsing, Keysers et al. (2020) introduced Compositional Freebase Queries (CFQ). This dataset maximizes the similarity between the test and train distributions over primitive units, like words, while maximizing the compound divergence: the dissimilarity between test and train distributions over larger structures, like phrases. Dependency parsing, however, lacks a compositional generalization benchmark. In this work, we introduce a gold-standard set of dependency parses for CFQ, and use this to analyze the behavior of a state-of-the art dependency parser (Qi et al., 2020) on the CFQ dataset. We find that increasing compound divergence degrades dependency parsing performance, although not as dramatically as semantic parsing performance. Additionally, we find the performance of the dependency parser does not uniformly degrade relative to compound divergence, and the parser performs differently on different splits with the same compound divergence. We explore a number of hypotheses for what causes the non-uniform degradation in dependency parsing performance, and identify a number of syntactic structures that drive the dependency parser's lower performance on the most challenging splits.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Evaluating Distributional Distortion in Neural Language Modeling

A fundamental characteristic of natural language is the high rate at which speakers produce novel expressions. Because of this novelty, a heavy-tail of rare events accounts for a significant amount of the total probability mass of distributions in language (Baayen, 2001). Standard language modeling metrics such as perplexity quantify the performance of language models (LM) in aggregate. As a result, we have relatively little understanding of whether neural LMs accurately estimate the probability of sequences in this heavy-tail of rare events. To address this gap, we develop a controlled evaluation scheme which uses generative models trained on natural data as artificial languages from which we can exactly compute sequence probabilities. Training LMs on generations from these artificial languages, we compare the sequence-level probability estimates given by LMs to the true probabilities in the target language. Our experiments reveal that LSTM and Transformer language models (i) systematically underestimate the probability of sequences drawn from the target language, and (ii) do so more severely for less-probable sequences. Investigating where this probability mass went, (iii) we find that LMs tend to overestimate the probability of ill formed (perturbed) sequences. In addition, we find that this underestimation behaviour (iv) is weakened, but not eliminated by greater amounts of training data, and (v) is exacerbated for target distributions with lower entropy.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Linguistic Dependencies and Statistical Dependence

Are pairs of words that tend to occur together also likely to stand in a linguistic dependency? This empirical question is motivated by a long history of literature in cognitive science, psycholinguistics, and NLP. In this work we contribute an extensive analysis of the relationship between linguistic dependencies and statistical dependence between words. Improving on previous work, we introduce the use of large pretrained language models to compute contextualized estimates of the pointwise mutual information between words (CPMI). For multiple models and languages, we extract dependency trees which maximize CPMI, and compare to gold standard linguistic dependencies. Overall, we find that CPMI dependencies achieve an unlabelled undirected attachment score of at most $\approx 0.5$. While far above chance, and consistently above a non-contextualized PMI baseline, this score is generally comparable to a simple baseline formed by connecting adjacent words. We analyze which kinds of linguistic dependencies are best captured in CPMI dependencies, and also find marked differences between the estimates of the large pretrained language models, illustrating how their different training schemes affect the type of dependencies they capture.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Exploiting Syntactic Structure for Better Language Modeling: A Syntactic Distance Approach

It is commonly believed that knowledge of syntactic structure should improve language modeling. However, effectively and computationally efficiently incorporating syntactic structure into neural language models has been a challenging topic. In this paper, we make use of a multi-task objective, i.e., the models simultaneously predict words as well as ground truth parse trees in a form called "syntactic distances", where information between these two separate objectives shares the same intermediate representation. Experimental results on the Penn Treebank and Chinese Treebank datasets show that when ground truth parse trees are provided as additional training signals, the model is able to achieve lower perplexity and induce trees with better quality.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Probing Linguistic Systematicity

Recently, there has been much interest in the question of whether deep natural language understanding models exhibit systematicity; generalizing such that units like words make consistent contributions to the meaning of the sentences in which they appear. There is accumulating evidence that neural models often generalize non-systematically. We examined the notion of systematicity from a linguistic perspective, defining a set of probes and a set of metrics to measure systematic behaviour. We also identified ways in which network architectures can generalize non-systematically, and discuss why such forms of generalization may be unsatisfying. As a case study, we performed a series of experiments in the setting of natural language inference (NLI), demonstrating that some NLU systems achieve high overall performance despite being non-systematic.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access