Word embeddings are representations of words in numerical form, as vectors of typically several hundred dimensions. The vectors are used as an input to machine learning models; for complex language processing tasks these are typically deep neural networks. The embedding vectors are obtained from specialized learning tasks, based on neural networks, e.g., word2vec BIBREF0, GloVe BIBREF1, FastText BIBREF2, ELMo BIBREF3, and BERT BIBREF4. For training, the embeddings algorithms use large monolingual corpora that encode important information about word meaning as distances between vectors. In order to enable downstream machine learning on text understanding tasks, the embeddings shall preserve semantic relations between words, and this is true even across languages.Probably the best known word embeddings are produced by the word2vec method BIBREF5. The problem with word2vec embeddings is their failure to express polysemous words. During training of an embedding, all senses of a given word (e.g., paper as a material, as a newspaper, as a scientific work, and as an exam) contribute relevant information in proportion to their frequency in the training corpus. This causes the final vector to be placed somewhere in the weighted middle of all words' meanings. Consequently, rare meanings of words are poorly expressed with word2vec and the resulting vectors do not offer good semantic representations. For example, none of the 50 closest vectors of the word paper is related to science.The idea of contextual embeddings is to generate a different vector for each context a word appears in and the context is typically defined sentence-wise. To a large extent, this solves the problems with word polysemy, i.e. the context of a sentence is typically enough to disambiguate different meanings of a word for humans and so it is for the learning algorithms. In this work, we describe high-quality models for contextual embeddings, called ELMo BIBREF3, precomputed for seven morphologically rich, less-resourced languages: Slovenian, Croatian, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Swedish. ELMo is one of the most successful approaches to contextual word embeddings. At time of its creation, ELMo has been shown to outperform previous word embeddings BIBREF3 like word2vec and GloVe on many NLP tasks, e.g., question answering, named entity extraction, sentiment analysis, textual entailment, semantic role labeling, and coreference resolution.This report is split into further five sections. In section SECREF2, we describe the contextual embeddings ELMo. In Section SECREF3, we describe the datasets used and in Section SECREF4 we describe preprocessing and training of the embeddings. We describe the methodology for evaluation of created vectors and results in Section SECREF5. We present conclusion in Section SECREF6 where we also outline plans for further work.Typical word embeddings models or representations, such as word2vec BIBREF0, GloVe BIBREF1, or FastText BIBREF2, are fast to train and have been pre-trained for a number of different languages. They do not capture the context, though, so each word is always given the same vector, regardless of its context or meaning. This is especially problematic for polysemous words. ELMo (Embeddings from Language Models) embedding BIBREF3 is one of the state-of-the-art pretrained transfer learning models, that remedies the problem and introduces a contextual component.ELMo model`s architecture consists of three neural network layers. The output of the model after each layer gives one set of embeddings, altogether three sets. The first layer is a CNN layer, which operates on a character level. It is context independent, so each word always gets the same embedding, regardless of its context. It is followed by two biLM layers. A biLM layer consists of two concatenated LSTMs. In the first LSTM, we try to predict the following word, based on the given past words, where each word is represented by the embeddings from the CNN layer. In the second LSTM, we try to predict the preceding word, based on the given following words. It is equivalent to the first LSTM, just reading the text in reverse.In NLP tasks, any set of these embeddings may be used; however, a weighted average is usually used. The weights of the average are learned during the training of the model for the specific task. Additionally, an entire ELMo model can be fine-tuned on a specific end task.Although ELMo is trained on character level and is able to handle out-of-vocabulary words, a vocabulary file containing most common tokens is used for efficiency during training and embedding generation. The original ELMo model was trained on a one billion word large English corpus, with a given vocabulary file of about 800,000 words. Later, ELMo models for other languages were trained as well, but limited to larger languages with many resources, like German and Japanese.Recently, ELMoForManyLangs BIBREF6 project released pre-trained ELMo models for a number of different languages BIBREF7. These models, however, were trained on a significantly smaller datasets. They used 20-million-words data randomly sampled from the raw text released by the CoNLL 2017 Shared Task - Automatically Annotated Raw Texts and Word Embeddings BIBREF8, which is a combination of Wikipedia dump and common crawl. The quality of these models is questionable. For example, we compared the Latvian model by ELMoForManyLangs with a model we trained on a complete (wikidump + common crawl) Latvian corpus, which has about 280 million tokens. The difference of each model on the word analogy task is shown in Figure FIGREF16 in Section SECREF5. As the results of the ELMoForManyLangs embeddings are significantly worse than using the full corpus, we can conclude that these embeddings are not of sufficient quality. For that reason, we computed ELMo embeddings for seven languages on much larger corpora. As this effort requires access to large amount of textual data and considerable computational resources, we made the precomputed models publicly available by depositing them to Clarin repository.We trained ELMo models for seven languages: Slovenian, Croatian, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Swedish. To obtain high-quality embeddings, we used large monolingual corpora from various sources for each language. Some corpora are available online under permissive licences, others are available only for research purposes or have limited availability. The corpora used in training datasets are a mix of news articles and general web crawl, which we preprocessed and deduplicated. Below we shortly describe the used corpora in alphabetical order of the involved languages. Their names and sizes are summarized in Table TABREF3.Croatian dataset include hrWaC 2.1 corpus BIBREF9, Riznica BIBREF10, and articles of Croatian branch of Styria media house, made available to us through partnership in a joint project. hrWaC was built by crawling the .hr internet domain in 2011 and 2014. Riznica is composed of Croatian fiction and non-fiction prose, poetry, drama, textbooks, manuals, etc. The Styria dataset consists of 570,219 news articles published on the Croatian 24sata news portal and niche portals related to 24sata.Estonian dataset contains texts from two sources, CoNLL 2017 Shared Task - Automatically Annotated Raw Texts and Word Embeddings BIBREF8, and news articles made available to us by Ekspress Meedia due to partnership in the project. Ekspress Meedia dataset is composed of Estonian news articles between years 2009 and 2019. The CoNLL 2017 corpus is composed of Estonian Wikipedia and webcrawl.Finnish dataset contains articles by Finnish news agency STT, Finnish part of the CoNLL 2017 dataset, and Ylilauta downloadable version BIBREF11. STT news articles were published between years 1992 and 2018. Ylilauta is a Finnish online discussion board; the corpus contains parts of the discussions from 2012 to 2014.Latvian dataset consists only of the Latvian portion of the ConLL 2017 corpus.Lithuanian dataset is composed of Lithuanian Wikipedia articles from 2018, DGT-UD corpus, and LtTenTen. DGT-UD is a parallel corpus of 23 official languages of the EU, composed of JRC DGT translation memory of European law, automatically annotated with UD-Pipe 1.2. LtTenTen is Lithuanian web corpus made up of texts collected from the internet in April 2014 BIBREF12.Slovene dataset is formed from the Gigafida 2.0 corpus BIBREF13. It is a general language corpus composed of various sources, mostly newspapers, internet pages, and magazines, but also fiction and non-fiction prose, textbooks, etc.Swedish dataset is composed of STT Swedish articles and Swedish part of CoNLL 2017. The Finnish news agency STT publishes some of its articles in Swedish language. They were made available to us through partnership in a joint project. The corpus contains those articles from 1992 to 2017.Prior to training the ELMo models, we sentence and word tokenized all the datasets. The text was formatted in such a way that each sentence was in its own line with tokens separated by white spaces. CoNLL 2017, DGT-UD and LtTenTen14 corpora were already pre-tokenized. We tokenized the others using the NLTK library and its tokenizers for each of the languages. There is no tokenizer for Croatian in NLTK library, so we used Slovene tokenizer instead. After tokenization, we deduplicated the datasets for each language separately, using the Onion (ONe Instance ONly) tool for text deduplication. We applied the tool on paragraph level for corpora that did not have sentences shuffled and on sentence level for the rest. We considered 9-grams with duplicate content threshold of 0.9.For each language we prepared a vocabulary file, containing roughly one million most common tokens, i.e. tokens that appear at least $n$ times in the corpus, where $n$ is between 15 and 25, depending on the dataset size. We included the punctuation marks among the tokens. We trained each ELMo model using default values used to train the original English ELMo (large) model.We evaluated the produced ELMo models for all languages using two evaluation tasks: a word analogy task and named entity recognition (NER) task. Below, we first shortly describe each task, followed by the evaluation results.The word analogy task was popularized by mikolov2013distributed. The goal is to find a term $y$ for a given term $x$ so that the relationship between $x$ and $y$ best resembles the given relationship $a : b$. There are two main groups of categories: 5 semantic and 10 syntactic. To illustrate a semantic relationship, consider for example that the word pair $a : b$ is given as “Finland : Helsinki”. The task is to find the term $y$ corresponding to the relationship “Sweden : $y$”, with the expected answer being $y=$ Stockholm. In syntactic categories, the two words in a pair have a common stem (in some cases even same lemma), with all the pairs in a given category having the same morphological relationship. For example, given the word pair “long : longer”, we see that we have an adjective in its base form and the same adjective in a comparative form. That task is then to find the term $y$ corresponding to the relationship “dark : $y$”, with the expected answer being $y=$ darker, that is a comparative form of the adjective dark.In the vector space, the analogy task is transformed into vector arithmetic and search for nearest neighbours, i.e. we compute the distance between vectors: d(vec(Finland), vec(Helsinki)) and search for word $y$ which would give the closest result in distance d(vec(Sweden), vec($y$)). In the analogy dataset the analogies are already pre-specified, so we are measuring how close are the given pairs. In the evaluation below, we use analogy datasets for all tested languages based on the English dataset by BIBREF14 . Due to English-centered bias of this dataset, we used a modified dataset which was first written in Slovene language and then translated into other languages BIBREF15.As each instance of analogy contains only four words, without any context, the contextual models (such as ELMo) do not have enough context to generate sensible embeddings. We therefore used some additional text to form simple sentences using the four analogy words, while taking care that their noun case stays the same. For example, for the words "Rome", "Italy", "Paris" and "France" (forming the analogy Rome is to Italy as Paris is to $x$, where the correct answer is $x=$France), we formed the sentence "If the word Rome corresponds to the word Italy, then the word Paris corresponds to the word France". We generated embeddings for those four words in the constructed sentence, substituted the last word with each word in our vocabulary and generated the embeddings again. As typical for non-contextual analogy task, we measure the cosine distance ($d$) between the last word ($w_4$) and the combination of the first three words ($w_2-w_1+w_3$). We use the CSLS metric BIBREF16 to find the closest candidate word ($w_4$). If we find the correct word among the five closest words, we consider that entry as successfully identified. The proportion of correctly identified words forms a statistic called accuracy@5, which we report as the result.We first compare existing Latvian ELMo embeddings from ELMoForManyLangs project with our Latvian embeddings, followed by the detailed analysis of our ELMo embeddings. We trained Latvian ELMo using only CoNLL 2017 corpora. Since this is the only language, where we trained the embedding model on exactly the same corpora as ELMoForManyLangs models, we chose it for comparison between our ELMo model with ELMoForManyLangs. In other languages, additional or other corpora were used, so a direct comparison would also reflect the quality of the corpora used for training. In Latvian, however, only the size of the training dataset is different. ELMoForManyLangs uses only 20 million tokens and we use the whole corpus of 270 million tokens.The Latvian ELMo model from ELMoForManyLangs project performs significantly worse than EMBEDDIA ELMo Latvian model on all categories of word analogy task (Figure FIGREF16). We also include the comparison with our Estonian ELMo embeddings in the same figure. This comparison shows that while differences between our Latvian and Estonian embeddings can be significant for certain categories, the accuracy score of ELMoForManyLangs is always worse than either of our models. The comparison of Estonian and Latvian models leads us to believe that a few hundred million tokens is a sufficiently large corpus to train ELMo models (at least for word analogy task), but 20-million token corpora used in ELMoForManyLangs are too small.The results for all languages and all ELMo layers, averaged over semantic and syntactic categories, are shown in Table TABREF17. The embeddings after the first LSTM layer perform best in semantic categories. In syntactic categories, the non-contextual CNN layer performs the best. Syntactic categories are less context dependent and much more morphology and syntax based, so it is not surprising that the non-contextual layer performs well. The second LSTM layer embeddings perform the worst in syntactic categories, though still outperforming CNN layer embeddings in semantic categories. Latvian ELMo performs worse compared to other languages we trained, especially in semantic categories, presumably due to smaller training data size. Surprisingly, the original English ELMo performs very poorly in syntactic categories and only outperforms Latvian in semantic categories. The low score can be partially explained by English model scoring $0.00$ in one syntactic category “opposite adjective”, which we have not been able to explain.For evaluation of ELMo models on a relevant downstream task, we used named entity recognition (NER) task. NER is an information extraction task that seeks to locate and classify named entity mentions in unstructured text into pre-defined categories such as the person names, organizations, locations, medical codes, time expressions, quantities, monetary values, percentages, etc. To allow comparison of results between languages, we used an adapted version of this task, which uses a reduced set of labels, available in NER datasets for all processed languages. The labels in the used NER datasets are simplified to a common label set of three labels (person - PER, location - LOC, organization - ORG). Each word in the NER dataset is labeled with one of the three mentioned labels or a label 'O' (other, i.e. not a named entity) if it does not fit any of the other three labels. The number of words having each label is shown in Table TABREF19.To measure the performance of ELMo embeddings on the NER task we proceeded as follows. We embedded the text in the datasets sentence by sentence, producing three vectors (one from each ELMo layer) for each token in a sentence. We calculated the average of the three vectors and used it as the input of our recognition model. The input layer was followed by a single LSTM layer with 128 LSTM cells and a dropout layer, randomly dropping 10% of the neurons on both the output and the recurrent branch. The final layer of our model was a time distributed softmax layer with 4 neurons.We used ADAM optimiser BIBREF17 with the learning rate 0.01 and $10^{-5}$ learning rate decay. We used categorical cross-entropy as a loss function and trained the model for 3 epochs. We present the results using the Macro $F_1$ score, that is the average of $F_1$-scores for each of the three NE classes (the class Other is excluded).Since the differences between the tested languages depend more on the properties of the NER datasets than on the quality of embeddings, we can not directly compare ELMo models. For this reason, we take the non-contextual fastText embeddings as a baseline and predict named entities using them. The architecture of the model using fastText embeddings is the same as the one using ELMo embeddings, except that the input uses 300 dimensional fastText embedding vectors, and the model was trained for 5 epochs (instead of 3 as for ELMo). In both cases (ELMo and fastText) we trained and evaluated the model five times, because there is some random component involved in initialization of the neural network model. By training and evaluating multiple times, we minimise this random component.The results are presented in Table TABREF21. We included the evaluation of the original ELMo English model in the same table. NER models have little difficulty distinguishing between types of named entities, but recognizing whether a word is a named entity or not is more difficult. For languages with the smallest NER datasets, Croatian and Lithuanian, ELMo embeddings show the largest improvement over fastText embeddings. However, we can observe significant improvements with ELMo also on English and Finnish, which are among the largest datasets (English being by far the largest). Only on Slovenian dataset did ELMo perform slightly worse than fastText, on all other EMBEDDIA languages, the ELMo embeddings improve the results.We prepared precomputed ELMo contextual embeddings for seven languages: Croatian, Estonian, Finnish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Slovenian, and Swedish. We present the necessary background on embeddings and contextual embeddings, the details of training the embedding models, and their evaluation. We show that the size of used training sets importantly affects the quality of produced embeddings, and therefore the existing publicly available ELMo embeddings for the processed languages are inadequate. We trained new ELMo embeddings on larger training sets and analysed their properties on the analogy task and on the NER task. The results show that the newly produced contextual embeddings produce substantially better results compared to the non-contextual fastText baseline. In future work, we plan to use the produced contextual embeddings on the problems of news media industry. The pretrained ELMo models will be deposited to the CLARIN repository by the time of the final version of this paper.The work was partially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) core research programme P6-0411. This paper is supported by European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 825153, project EMBEDDIA (Cross-Lingual Embeddings for Less-Represented Languages in European News Media). The results of this publication reflects only the authors' view and the EU Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Q: How larger are the training sets of these versions of ELMo compared to the previous ones?
A: By 14 times.
up to 1.95 times larger

Q: What is the improvement in performance for Estonian in the NER task?
A: 5 percent points.
0.05 F1