Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Towards Realistic Practices In Low-Resource Natural Language Processing: The Development Set

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1909.01522 v2 pith:2QMFJ7HI submitted 2019-09-04 cs.CL

Towards Realistic Practices In Low-Resource Natural Language Processing: The Development Set

classification cs.CL
keywords developmentlow-resourcelanguagesresultsrealisticsetstrainingaccuracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Development sets are impractical to obtain for real low-resource languages, since using all available data for training is often more effective. However, development sets are widely used in research papers that purport to deal with low-resource natural language processing (NLP). Here, we aim to answer the following questions: Does using a development set for early stopping in the low-resource setting influence results as compared to a more realistic alternative, where the number of training epochs is tuned on development languages? And does it lead to overestimation or underestimation of performance? We repeat multiple experiments from recent work on neural models for low-resource NLP and compare results for models obtained by training with and without development sets. On average over languages, absolute accuracy differs by up to 1.4%. However, for some languages and tasks, differences are as big as 18.0% accuracy. Our results highlight the importance of realistic experimental setups in the publication of low-resource NLP research results.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.