Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Does the “joint model” mean joint probability? #84

Open
msklvsk opened this issue Oct 12, 2018 · 2 comments
Open

Does the “joint model” mean joint probability? #84

msklvsk opened this issue Oct 12, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@msklvsk
Copy link

msklvsk commented Oct 12, 2018

Does UDPipe-Future predict morphology first, and than use that morphology as an input to syntax or does it consider joint probabilities of such syntax over such morpho? There should be cases of probable morphology which leads to improbable syntax.

@foxik
Copy link
Member

foxik commented Oct 13, 2018

In the shared task we tried two approaches, one was to do morphology first and then use it as input to syntax. The other possibility was to compute shared representations for both morphology and syntax and then predict both independently. Generally both approaches seem to result in very similar performance.

@msklvsk
Copy link
Author

msklvsk commented Nov 12, 2018

While investigating morpho errors of UDPipe 1.2 for Ukrainian, I found that ~20% are cases where the tagger selected more popular interpretation instead of rare but correct one. If it considered the unlikeliness of a parse such popular interp will produce, it may have made the correct decision.
But it must be different with UDPipe-Future. Looking forward to test it!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants