Question: What was added to the EP data in Line 1?
Evidence: Since the CoNLL annotations have 21 semantic roles in total, we use 21 roles in our model as well as the baseline. Following garg2012unsupervised, we set the number of PRs to 2 (excluding INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 ), and SRs to 21-2=19. Table TABREF27 shows the results.
In the first setting (Line 1), we train and test the monolingual model on the CoNLL data. We observe significant improvements in F1 score over the Baseline (Line 0) in both languages. Using the CoNLL 2009 dataset alone, titovcrosslingual report an F1 score of 80.9% (PU=86.8%, CO=75.7%) for German. Thus, our monolingual model outperforms their monolingual model in German. For English, they report an F1 score of 83.6% (PU=87.5%, CO=80.1%), but note that our English results are not directly comparable to theirs due to differences argument identification, as discussed in section SECREF25 . As their argument identification score is lower, perhaps their system is discarding “difficult” arguments which leads to a higher clustering score.
In the second setting (Line 2), we use the additional monolingual Europarl (EP) data for training. We get equivalent results in English and a significant improvement in German compared to our previous setting (Line 1). The German dataset in CoNLL is quite small and benefits from the additional EP training data. In contrast, the English model is already quite good due to a relatively big dataset from CoNLL, and good accuracy syntactic parsers. Unfortunately, titovcrosslingual do not report results with this setting.
The third setting (Line 3) gives the results of our multilingual model, which adds the word alignments in the EP data. Comparing with Line 2, we get non-significant improvements in both languages. titovcrosslingual obtain an F1 score of 82.7% (PU=85.0%, CO=80.6%) for German, and 83.7% (PU=86.8%, CO=80.7%) for English. Thus, for German, our multilingual Bayesian model is able to capture the cross-lingual patterns at least as well as the external penalty term in BIBREF6 . We cannot compare the English results unfortunately due to differences in argument identification.
We also compared monolingual and bilingual training data using a setting that emulates the standard supervised setup of separate training and test data sets. We train only on the EP dataset and test on the CoNLL dataset. Lines 4 and 5 of Table TABREF27 give the results. The multilingual model obtains small improvements in both languages, which confirms the results from the standard unsupervised setup, comparing lines 2 to 3.
These results indicate that little information can be learned about semantic roles from this parallel data setup. One possible explanation for this result is that the setup itself is inadequate. Given the definition of aligned arguments, only 8% of English arguments and 17% of German arguments are aligned. This plus our experiments suggest that improving the alignment model is a necessary step to making effective use of parallel data in multilingual SRI, for example by joint modeling with SRI. We leave this exploration to future work.
The third setting (Line 3) gives the results of our multilingual model, which adds the word alignments in the EP data.
Answer: The word alignments.