id int64 1 24.5M | paragraph_id int64 0 159k | content stringlengths 1 571k ⌀ | paper_arxiv_id stringlengths 10 13 | paper_section stringlengths 1 262 | section_id float64 4 360k ⌀ | paragraph_in_paper_id int64 1 29.8k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
22,512,201 | 2 | Instead of manually designing prompts, CoOp \cite{zhou2022learning} proposes a prompt tuning approach that learns task-specific prompts. In this method, learnable vectors in the word embedding space are trained using image-text pairs from target tasks and serve as prompts. This approach achieves significant performance... | 2502.11969 | Introduction | 228,291 | 3 |
22,512,202 | 3 | In this work, we first investigate how prompts learned from base classes fail to generalize to unseen classes in terms of semantic disruptions. We observe that when the text embeddings generated by learned prompts form incorrect semantic relationships with other classes, they act as low-quality classifiers, leading to ... | 2502.11969 | Introduction | 228,291 | 4 |
22,512,203 | 4 | As a regularizer, SAR can be applied to existing prompt tuning models without any architectural modifications. We validate the effectiveness of SAR on various baselines, including textual prompt tuning models: CoOp \cite{zhou2022learning}, KgCoOp \cite{yao2023kgcoop}, TCP \cite{yao2024tcp} and multi-modal prompt tuning... | 2502.11969 | Introduction | 228,291 | 5 |
22,512,207 | 3 | \keypoint{Regularization for Prompt Tuning.}Regularization for Prompt Tuning. Various regularization techniques have been explored to learn generalizable prompts. ProGrad \cite{zhu2023prompt} ensures that the gradient for prompt tuning does not conflict with the gradient used to preserve the general knowledge of CLIP. ... | 2502.11969 | Related Work | 228,292 | 9 |
22,512,208 | 0 | In this section, we present the implementation of SAR and its integration within the prompt tuning framework. | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 10 |
22,512,209 | 1 | \subsection{Preliminaries}
\keypoint{Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) \cite{radford2021clip}.}Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) \cite{radford2021clip}. CLIP is a vision-language model pre-trained on 400 million image-text pairs, designed to align semantic relationships between image and text ... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 11 |
22,512,210 | 2 | \keypoint{Context Optimization.}Context Optimization. CoOp \cite{zhou2022learning} proposes a framework that trains prompts via a classification task using image-text pairs of target tasks. In CoOp, $P$P trainable vectors $[\boldsymbol{v}_1, \boldsymbol{v}_2, \dots, \boldsymbol{v}_P]$[\boldsymbol{v}v_1, \boldsymbol{v}v... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 12 |
22,512,211 | 3 | \begin{equation}
p(\boldsymbol{w}_i|\boldsymbol{x}) = \frac{\exp(\cos(\boldsymbol{g}_i,\boldsymbol{f}) / \tau)}{\sum_{j=1}^C \exp(\cos(\boldsymbol{g}_j,\boldsymbol{f}) / \tau)},
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
p(\boldsymbol{w}_i|\boldsymbol{x}) = \frac{\exp(\cos(\boldsymbol{g}_i,\boldsymbol{f}) / \tau)}{\sum_{j=1}^C \ex... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 13 |
22,512,212 | 4 | where $\cos(\cdot, \cdot)$\cos(\cdot, \cdot) denotes cosine similarity, $C$C is the number of classes, and $\tau$\tau is the learned temperature parameter of CLIP. To optimize prompts for target tasks, trainable vectors are updated by cross-entropy loss: | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 14 |
22,512,213 | 5 | \begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{ce}}=-\sum_{i} \boldsymbol{y}_i \log p(\boldsymbol{w}_i|\boldsymbol{x}),
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{ce}}=-\sum_{i} \boldsymbol{y}_i \log p(\boldsymbol{w}_i|\boldsymbol{x}),
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{ce}}\text{ce}=-\sum_{i}i \boldsymbol{y}y_i \log p(\bol... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 15 |
22,512,216 | 8 | \keypoint{Computing Semantic Similarities among Classes.}Computing Semantic Similarities among Classes. We begin by describing how to compute a similarity distribution matrix, which shows the semantic relationships among text embeddings. Let $\{\boldsymbol{g}_j\}_{j=1}^{N}$\{\boldsymbol{g}g_j\}_{j=1}j=1^{N}N denote a s... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 18 |
22,512,217 | 9 | Note that the matrix $\mathbf{P}$\mathbf{P} is not necessarily symmetric, as the normalization can differ for each row. | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 19 |
22,512,219 | 10 | \keypoint{Prompt Generalization Evaluation.}Prompt Generalization Evaluation. To evaluate the generalization of learned prompts to unseen classes, we perform base-to-new generalization experiments. Specifically, we first train prompts using image-text pairs from only half of dataset's classes (base classes). Then, we c... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 20 |
22,512,221 | 11 | The experimental results on EuroSAT \cite{helber2019eurosat} are presented in \Cref{fig:motivation}. The leftmost heatmap, corresponding to $\mathbf{P}_{\mathtt{CoOp}}$\mathbf{P}_{\mathtt{CoOp}}\mathtt{CoOp}, reveals that the learned prompts generate semantically misaligned text embeddings for certain new classes. For ... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 21 |
22,512,223 | 12 | \subsection{Similarity Alignment Regularization}
To prevent semantic disruptions caused by learned prompts and improve generalization, we propose Similarity Alignment Regularization (SAR). \Cref{fig:framework} illustrates the operation of SAR in prompt learning. | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 22 |
22,536,844 | 1 | The scalability of generative AI systems when handling big datasets presents another difficulty. The constraints imposed by API query limits and computational resources frequently cause traditional generative AI models to falter \cite{vaswani2017attention}. This limits their capacity to effectively manage large amounts... | 2502.13164 | Introduction | 229,212 | 2 |
22,512,224 | 13 | \keypoint{Prompt Learning with Novel Classes.}Prompt Learning with Novel Classes. We use ChatGPT-4o to generate novel classes semantically aligned with the base classes, utilizing them as potential unseen classes during prompt tuning. Specifically, we provide ChatGPT-4o with a list of the base classes and instruct it t... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 23 |
22,512,225 | 14 | For learnable prompts to preserve meaningful semantic relationships among classes, SAR aim to align the semantic relationships in $\mathcal{G}_{\mathtt{CoOp}}$\mathcal{G}_{\mathtt{CoOp}}\mathtt{CoOp} with those in $\mathcal{G}_{\mathtt{hand}}$\mathcal{G}_{\mathtt{hand}}\mathtt{hand} during prompt tuning.
A straightforw... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 24 |
22,512,226 | 15 | \keypoint{Computing Similarities for Sampled Classes.}Computing Similarities for Sampled Classes. For each $\hat{\boldsymbol{g}}_j$\hat{\boldsymbol{g}}_j, we compute similarities with $K$K other embeddings that are randomly sampled, rather than considering all other embeddings. Let $\mathcal{I}_j$\mathcal{I}_j denote t... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 25 |
22,512,227 | 16 | \sigma\Big(\big[\cos(\hat{\boldsymbol{g}}_1, \hat{\boldsymbol{g}}_k) \,|\, k \in \mathcal{I}_1\big]\Big) \\
\sigma\Big(\big[\cos(\hat{\boldsymbol{g}}_2, \hat{\boldsymbol{g}}_k) \,|\, k \in \mathcal{I}_2\big]\Big) \\
\vdots \\
\sigma\Big(\big[\cos(\hat{\boldsymbol{g}}_M, \hat{\boldsymbol{g}}_k) \,|\, k \in \mathcal{I}_M... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 26 |
22,512,229 | 18 | where $\sigma(\cdot)$\sigma(\cdot) denotes the softmax function with the CLIP-learned temperature $\tau$\tau. Using $\mathcal{G}_{\mathtt{hand}}$\mathcal{G}_{\mathtt{hand}}\mathtt{hand}, we also compute $\mathbf{P}_{\mathtt{hand}}^{\mathcal{I}} \in \mathbb{R}^{M \times K}$\mathbf{P}_{\mathtt{hand}}\mathtt{hand}^{\mathc... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 28 |
22,512,230 | 19 | \keypoint{Randomized Similarity Alignment.}Randomized Similarity Alignment. SAR minimizes the KL divergence between the corresponding rows of $\mathbf{P}^{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathtt{CoOp}}$\mathbf{P}^{\mathcal{I}}\mathcal{I}_{\mathtt{CoOp}}\mathtt{CoOp} and $\mathbf{P}^{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathtt{hand}}$\mathbf{P}^{\mathcal{I}}\... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 29 |
22,512,231 | 20 | \begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{SAR}} = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{i=1}^M \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{KL}}(\mathbf{P}^{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathtt{CoOp},i} \parallel \mathbf{P}^{\mathcal{I}}_{\mathtt{hand},i}).
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{SAR}} = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{i=1}^M \mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{KL}}(\mathbf{P}^{\mat... | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 30 |
22,512,232 | 21 | where $\mathcal{I}$\mathcal{I} is newly sampled at every single parameter update step during prompt tuning.
Finally, the training objective for SAR-applied prompt tuning is: | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 31 |
22,512,233 | 22 | \begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{\text{ce}}+\lambda \mathcal{L}_{\text{SAR}}
\end{equation}\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{\text{ce}}+\lambda \mathcal{L}_{\text{SAR}}
\end{equation}
\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{\text{ce}}\text{ce}+\lambda \mathcal{L}_{\text{SAR}}\text{SAR} | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 32 |
22,512,234 | 23 | where $\lambda$\lambda is the hyperparameter that controls the strength of the regularization. | 2502.11969 | Prompt Tuning with SAR | 228,293 | 33 |
22,512,236 | 1 | \keypoint{Datasets.}Datasets.
For base-to-new generalization, we evaluate our method on 11 datasets. ImageNet \cite{deng2009imagenet} and Caltech-101 \cite{fei2004learning} are used for generic object classification, while fine-grained classification is conducted on OxfordPets \cite{parkhi2012cats}, StanfordCars \cite{... | 2502.11969 | Experiments | 228,294 | 35 |
22,512,237 | 2 | \keypoint{Implementation details.}Implementation details.
All experiments are conducted with the CLIP ViT-B/16 model. For each dataset, 200 novel classes generated by ChatGPT-4o are used for SAR. The embedding sampling size $K$K is fixed at 64 across all experiments. In base-to-new generalization, for CoOp and KgCoOp, ... | 2502.11969 | Experiments | 228,294 | 36 |
22,512,238 | 3 | \subsection{Ablation Study}
\keypoint{Stepwise Analysis of SAR's Effectiveness.}Stepwise Analysis of SAR's Effectiveness.
To analyze the contribution of each component in SAR, we conduct a base-to-new generalization experiment in the 16-shot setting, using CoOp as the baseline. The results, averaged across 11 dataset... | 2502.11969 | Experiments | 228,294 | 37 |
22,512,239 | 4 | \keypoint{Impact of Number of Novel Classes on SAR.}Impact of Number of Novel Classes on SAR.
We evaluate the impact of the number of novel classes on the effectiveness of SAR. To this end, we train prompts by applying SAR under two different numbers of novel classes: one using 50 novel classes and the other using 200 ... | 2502.11969 | Experiments | 228,294 | 38 |
22,512,240 | 5 | \keypoint{Impact of Regularization Weight $\lambda$ on SAR.}Impact of Regularization Weight $\lambda$\lambda on SAR.
We evaluate the impact of the regularization weight $\lambda$\lambda on performance. The experimental results under 4-shot setting are presented in \Cref{fig:weight_ab}. The left plot in the figure shows... | 2502.11969 | Experiments | 228,294 | 39 |
22,512,241 | 6 | \keypoint{Resource Costs for Introducing SAR.}Resource Costs for Introducing SAR.
We report the additional resource requirements incurred by SAR on ImageNet in \Cref{tab:incurred_resource}. Since SAR does not modify the model architecture, it does not introduce any extra trainable parameters. Moreover, as SAR operates ... | 2502.11969 | Experiments | 228,294 | 40 |
22,536,845 | 2 | Furthermore, a useful mechanism for creating and validating intricate analytical workflows is frequently absent from current systems. While code snippets and simple visualizations can be produced by generative AI, significant human intervention is usually necessary to ensure these outputs’ accuracy, effectiveness, and ... | 2502.13164 | Introduction | 229,212 | 3 |
22,512,242 | 7 | \subsection{Base-to-New Generalization}
In the Base-to-New generalization task, we evaluate the performance of models with and without SAR in 16-shot setting across 11 datasets. The classes in each dataset are divided into two groups, where prompts trained on one group (base classes) are used to evaluate performance on... | 2502.11969 | Experiments | 228,294 | 41 |
22,512,243 | 8 | \subsection{Effectiveness with Alternative Word Sources}
We investigate whether SAR remains effective when using novel classes extracted from sources other than LLMs. To this end, we train SAR with novel classes from (1) 200 randomly sampled nouns from WordNet \cite{miller1995wordnet}, a large lexical database, and (2)... | 2502.11969 | Experiments | 228,294 | 42 |
22,512,244 | 9 | \subsection{Effectiveness in Few Shot Setting}
To validate the effectiveness of SAR in a few-shot setting, we conduct base-to-new generalization experiments under 4-shot setting for CoOp, TCP, and CoPrompt. In the case of CoOp, the models show a stronger tendency to increase SAR loss during prompt tuning compared to th... | 2502.11969 | Experiments | 228,294 | 43 |
22,512,245 | 10 | \subsection{Domain Generalization}
Domain generalization evaluates how well a model can generalize to domains with data distributions that differ from its training domain. Following convention, we use ImageNet as the source domain and evaluate the performance of the trained model on ImageNet-Sketch, ImageNet-A, ImageNe... | 2502.11969 | Experiments | 228,294 | 44 |
22,512,247 | 1 | {
\small
\bibliographystyle{ieeenat_fullname}
\bibliography{main}
}
\small
\bibliographystyle{ieeenat_fullname}ieeenat_fullname
\bibliography{main} | 2502.11969 | Conclusion and Limitation | 228,295 | 46 |
22,512,248 | 2 | \clearpage
\setcounter{page}{1}
\maketitlesupplementary | 2502.11969 | Conclusion and Limitation | 228,295 | 47 |
22,512,249 | 3 | \definecolor{codegreen}{rgb}{0,0.6,0}
\definecolor{codegray}{rgb}{0.5,0.5,0.5}
\definecolor{codepurple}{rgb}{0.58,0,0.82}
\definecolor{backcolour}{rgb}{0.95,0.95,0.92} | 2502.11969 | Conclusion and Limitation | 228,295 | 48 |
22,512,250 | 0 | \begin{lstlisting}[
language={},
label=lst:gpt,
backgroundcolor=\color{backcolour},
commentstyle=\color{codegreen},
keywordstyle=\color{magenta},
numberstyle=\tiny\color{codegray},
stringstyle=\color{codepurple},
basicstyle=\ttfamily\footnotesize,
breakatwhitespace=false, ... | 2502.11969 | Prompt for ChatGPT-4o | 228,296 | 49 |
22,512,252 | 2 | Here are the my words: [`Annual Crop Land', 'Forest', 'Herbaceous Vegetation Land', 'Highway or Road', 'Industrial Buildings']
\end{lstlisting}\begin{lstlisting}[
language={},
label=lst:gpt,
backgroundcolor=\color{backcolour},
commentstyle=\color{codegreen},
keywordstyle=\color{magenta},
numb... | 2502.11969 | Prompt for ChatGPT-4o | 228,296 | 51 |
22,512,254 | 4 | Here are the my words: [`Annual Crop Land', 'Forest', 'Herbaceous Vegetation Land', 'Highway or Road', 'Industrial Buildings']
\end{lstlisting}[
language={},
label=lst:gpt,
backgroundcolor=\color{backcolour},
commentstyle=\color{codegreen},
keywordstyle=\color{magenta},
numberstyle=\tiny\colo... | 2502.11969 | Prompt for ChatGPT-4o | 228,296 | 53 |
22,512,255 | 5 | The new words should be as semantically distinct from each other as possible while staying relevant to the shared concept. Aim for diversity within the category to showcase a broad range of examples. Please return the words in a Python list format. | 2502.11969 | Prompt for ChatGPT-4o | 228,296 | 54 |
22,512,257 | 7 | We provide the prompt given to ChatGPT-4o for generating novel classes for EuroSAT. The prompt is designed based on the templates from \cite{anperceptionclip}. For other datasets, only the list of base classes is modified. | 2502.11969 | Prompt for ChatGPT-4o | 228,296 | 56 |
22,512,258 | 0 | We use the prompt templates provided in the implementation of CoOp \cite{zhou2022learning} for prompt ensembling. For each dataset, a total of eight prompts are ensembled, comprising seven general prompts and one dataset-specific custom prompt. | 2502.11969 | Prompts for Ensembling | 228,297 | 57 |
22,512,259 | 0 | We compare the words generated by ChatGPT-4o with the actual new classes in the dataset. This qualitative comparison suggests that the words generated by ChatGPT-4o are semantically aligned with the new classes, making them suitable candidates for unseen classes. | 2502.11969 | Word Examples | 228,298 | 58 |
22,512,270 | 5 | Abstract Meaning Representation \citep[AMR;][]{banarescu-etal-2013-abstract}
on which UMR is based, has seen success and adoption by the broader NLP community, and this is in large part due to the substantial efforts made towards high-quality text-to-AMR parsing and AMR-to-text generation models \citep{sadeddine-etal-2... | 2502.11973 | Introduction | 228,299 | 6 |
22,512,272 | 6 | In this work, we leverage the recent release of human-annotated UMR data (detailed in \Cref{ssec:data})
to tackle UMR-to-text generation and introduce the first UMR-to-text generation models. We investigate generation from the six languages included in the UMR v1.0 dataset: English, Chinese, Sanapaná, Arápaho, Kukama, ... | 2502.11973 | Introduction | 228,299 | 7 |
22,512,274 | 0 | UMR is based on Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR), which was designed for English
\citep{banarescu-etal-2013-abstract} but has since seen various cross-lingual extensions and applications \citep{10.1162/coli_a_00503}. | 2502.11973 | Uniform Meaning Representation | 228,300 | 8 |
22,512,275 | 1 | Similarly to AMR, UMR annotations are rooted, directed graphs that capture the meaning of a sentence \citep{van2021designing}.
UMR incorporates aspect and modality at the sentence-level and additionally includes document-level graphs, enabling annotation of coreferential relations.
Alignments between the coreferential ... | 2502.11973 | Uniform Meaning Representation | 228,300 | 9 |
22,512,276 | 2 | In order to ensure that UMR could reflect meaning for many languages, the UMR schema is flexible in its annotation while ensuring consistency across languages.
At the sentence-level, UMR accounts for linguistic diversity across languages through the use of a lattice-like annotation schema \citep{van-gysel-etal-2019-cro... | 2502.11973 | Uniform Meaning Representation | 228,300 | 10 |
22,512,277 | 3 | UMR successfully accommodates the multilingual issues addressed in individual language adaptations of AMR, showing its promise as a multilingual representation \citep{wein-bonn-2023-comparing}. Its effectiveness at capturing meaning across languages was also indicated in the pilot annotation of UMR in four indigenous l... | 2502.11973 | Uniform Meaning Representation | 228,300 | 11 |
22,512,278 | 4 | \Citet{chun-xue-2024-pipeline} released a text-to-UMR parser, which produces the document-level UMR graph based on the contents of the sentence, and the sentence-level UMR graph by running existing text-to-AMR parsers and then converting the AMR into a UMR.\footnote{This pipelined parsing approach mirrors our baseline ... | 2502.11973 | Uniform Meaning Representation | 228,300 | 12 |
22,512,281 | 1 | Our baseline approach uses six AMR-to-text generation models, passing the sentence-level UMR graphs as input.
Next, using the same six models used for our baseline, we developed a pipeline approach (\Cref{sec:conversion}) to UMR-to-text generation, which involved first converting the UMR graphs to AMR graphs, and then ... | 2502.11973 | Methodology | 228,301 | 15 |
22,512,282 | 2 | \subsection{Data}
\label{ssec:data}
We used the first release of UMR data \citep{bonn-etal-2024-building-broad}, which contains annotations in six languages: English, Chinese, and four languages indigenous to the Americas: Arápaho, Navajo, Sanapaná, and Kukama.
The English data contains
LORELEI news text and a descrip... | 2502.11973 | Methodology | 228,301 | 16 |
22,512,283 | 3 | Not all annotations contained sentence-level and document-level graphs.
This is because some annotations without document-level data contained alignment data or could be referenced in other document-level annotations.
Our final data split was 70\% for training, 10\% for dev, and 20\% for testing (the number of sentence... | 2502.11973 | Methodology | 228,301 | 17 |
22,512,285 | 5 | We compare the generated text from each of our approaches against the references (the ground-truth sentences that were annotated) by using BERTscore \citep{zhang2019bertscore}, given its previously evidenced correlation with human judgments for AMR-to-English text generation \citep{manning-etal-2020-human}. Specificall... | 2502.11973 | Methodology | 228,301 | 19 |
22,512,286 | 6 | \subsection{Indigenous Language Evaluation}
During initial experimentation, we saw primarily positive quantitative indications as far as the ability of our models to produce text in the four indigenous languages,
for example, multilingual BERTscores of 0.799 for Navajo, 0.816 for Sanapaná, 0.780 for Arápaho, and 0.673... | 2502.11973 | Methodology | 228,301 | 20 |
22,512,287 | 7 | However, given the fact that these languages are extremely low-resource and are not likely to be well-evaluated by BERTscore, METEOR, and BLEU,
we consulted with speakers of Arápaho and Navajo to provide a human evaluation of the generated text.
We provided the output from the amrlib sentence-level model fine-tuned on... | 2502.11973 | Methodology | 228,301 | 21 |
22,512,288 | 8 | As a result, we moved forward with evaluating our approaches and models exclusively in English and Chinese (both with regard to automatic evaluation and human evaluation). We still leveraged the indigenous language data in the UMR splits (as indicated in \Cref{tab:split}) for our model fine-tuning (\Cref{sec:fine-tuned... | 2502.11973 | Methodology | 228,301 | 22 |
22,512,289 | 9 | \subsection{Human Evaluation}
In order to validate the quantitative results obtained by the automatic metrics, we perform a human evaluation. Six college students participated in the evaluation of the English and Chinese texts, who were native speakers of English and Chinese accordingly.
Each annotator judged fluency a... | 2502.11973 | Methodology | 228,301 | 23 |
22,512,290 | 10 | There were a total of four surveys: English fluency, English adequacy, Chinese fluency, and Chinese adequacy, each of which contained 25 questions. For English, we chose to exclude the 5 shortest sentences, which left us with a final set of 25 sentences. For Chinese, we randomly selected the sentences.
Each question in... | 2502.11973 | Methodology | 228,301 | 24 |
22,512,291 | 11 | We evaluated the inter-annotator agreement using the Pearson correlation coefficient \citep{Pearson1895}, calculating pairwise agreement for each of the four surveys (Chinese and English, fluency and adequacy for each).
The average correlation coefficient for English fluency was 0.72, for English adequacy was 0.78, for... | 2502.11973 | Methodology | 228,301 | 25 |
22,512,292 | 0 | \label{sec:baseline} | 2502.11973 | Baseline Approach | 228,302 | 26 |
22,512,293 | 1 | Given the similarity of UMR to AMR and the prevalence of AMR technologies, we use AMR-to-text generation models
out-of-the-box as a baseline model for sentence-level UMR graphs,
to see how they perform as a zero-shot approach with no exposure to UMR.
We elect to perform the baseline experimentation on sentence-level U... | 2502.11973 | Baseline Approach | 228,302 | 27 |
22,536,846 | 3 | Further complexity is added when multi-agent systems are integrated into generative AI frameworks. Conventional single-agent systems are frequently constrained by their incapacity to oversee and optimize several tasks at once. Comparatively, multi-agent systems are able to divide up the work and work together to produc... | 2502.13164 | Introduction | 229,212 | 4 |
22,536,847 | 4 | To address these challenges, we propose a novel framework for generative AI that leverages a multi-agent actor-critic model to enhance query resolution and data analysis. Our system consists of three primary generative AI agents: the Actor Generative AI, the Critic Generative AI, and the Expert Analysis Generative AI, ... | 2502.13164 | Introduction | 229,212 | 5 |
22,512,294 | 2 | \subsection{Models}
We apply this approach to six AMR-to-text generation models:
\begin{itemize}
\addtolength\itemsep{-3mm}
\item[1.] amrlib\footnote{ \href{https://github.com/bjascob/amrlib/tree/master}{amrlib GitHub Repository}}: generates text using a pretrained Sequence-to-Sequence T5 model, trained on AMR3.0 ... | 2502.11973 | Baseline Approach | 228,302 | 28 |
22,512,296 | 3 | Amrlib, AMRBART, SPRING2, SPRING3 and BiBL are all trained to generate English text, while Smelting can produce Spanish, Italian, German, and Chinese text.
Thus, as a baseline, we run the first five models on the English UMR graphs (to generate into English), and run Smelting on the Chinese UMR graphs (to generate into... | 2502.11973 | Baseline Approach | 228,302 | 29 |
22,512,297 | 4 | \subsection{Results}
\label{ssec:base_results} | 2502.11973 | Baseline Approach | 228,302 | 30 |
22,512,298 | 5 | The automatic metric results for the English and Chinese baseline models were highly comparable, a promising indication of the utility of AMR-to-text generation tools for UMR-to-text generation. | 2502.11973 | Baseline Approach | 228,302 | 31 |
22,512,299 | 6 | Out-of-the-box, the English results from the five baseline models (\Cref{tab:auto-eval-english}) all achieved multilingual BERTscores of around 0.7 (ranging from 0.681-0.704). The BLEU and METEOR scores were noticeably lower.
The Chinese baseline results (\Cref{tab:auto-eval-chinese}) were similarly high, with the base... | 2502.11973 | Baseline Approach | 228,302 | 32 |
22,512,300 | 7 | Our qualitative analysis of the baseline models revealed that it was very common to see the inclusion of UMR-specific terms such as \texttt{refer-number singular}, \texttt{full-affirmative}, \texttt{umr-unknown}, and \texttt{3rd person} in the text output. Examples of this can be seen in the following generated sentenc... | 2502.11973 | Baseline Approach | 228,302 | 33 |
22,512,301 | 8 | \caption{English automatic evaluation Results.
BERT: multilingual BERTscore, EN: fine-tuned only on English, Sent: sentence-level, Doc: document-level, All: trained on all languages. Bolded entries were selected for the human evaluation. Due to having trained over 50 individual models, here we show a representative sa... | 2502.11973 | Baseline Approach | 228,302 | 34 |
22,512,302 | 9 | \caption{Chinese - Automatic Evaluation Results. BERT: multilingual BERTscore, ZH: Chinese fine-tuning, Sent: sentence-level, Doc: document-level, All: trained on all languages. Bolded entries were selected for the human evaluation, Smelt: Smelting model.
Due to the large number of models trained, here we show a repre... | 2502.11973 | Baseline Approach | 228,302 | 35 |
22,512,303 | 10 | Based on the shorter output length and higher perceived fluency in our initial qualitative analysis, we determined that BiBL was the best baseline English model, and Smelting was our only baseline Chinese model.
Thus, we included the baseline BiBL and Smelting models in the human evaluation survey.
The human evaluatio... | 2502.11973 | Baseline Approach | 228,302 | 36 |
22,512,305 | 1 | Our next approach again leveraged existing AMR-to-text generation models, but in this case first converting the UMR graph into an AMR. | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 38 |
22,512,306 | 2 | \subsection{Conversion Process}
In order to convert UMR graphs into AMR, we designed a rule-based conversion process.
When converting UMR graphs into AMR graphs, some elements of UMR graphs do not appear in AMR (such as aspect and mode) and were thus simply removed.
Other changes included converting split roles, renami... | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 39 |
22,512,307 | 3 | In order to verify the validity of the conversion process itself, we leveraged the 66 held-out English UMRs which contained equivalent AMRs in the AMR3.0 dataset (detailed in \Cref{ssec:data}), and compared the generated graphs to their equivalent human-annotated AMR graphs using SMATCH. The average Smatch score for ou... | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 40 |
22,512,308 | 4 | \noindent Original AMR:
\begin{small}
\vspace{-1mm}
\begin{verbatim}
(p / pleasure)
\end{verbatim}
\end{small}\begin{small}
\vspace{-1mm}
\begin{verbatim}
(p / pleasure)
\end{verbatim}
\end{small}
\vspace{-1mm} | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 41 |
22,512,309 | 5 | \vspace{13mm}
\noindent Original UMR:
\begin{small}
\vspace{-1mm}
\begin{verbatim}
(s29s / say-01
:ARG0 (s29p / person)
:ARG1 (s29h / have-experience-91
:ARG1 s29p
:ARG2 (s29p3 / pleasure)
:ARG3 (s29t / thing)
:aspect state)
:ARG2 (s29p2 / person)
:aspect performance)
\e... | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 42 |
22,512,310 | 6 | \noindent Converted AMR:
\begin{small}
\vspace{-1mm}
\begin{verbatim}
(s29s / say-01
:ARG0 (s29p / person)
:ARG1 (s29h / have-experience-91
:ARG1 s29p
:ARG2 (s29p3 / pleasure)
:ARG3 (s29t / thing))
:ARG2 (s29p2 / person))
\end{verbatim}
\end{small}\begin{small}
\vspace{-1mm}
\... | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 43 |
22,512,311 | 7 | \noindent Generated text from BiBL of the converted AMR: ``People said it was a pleasurable experience.'' \\ | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 44 |
22,512,312 | 8 | \caption{English - Human Evaluation Results. EN: English fine-tuning, Sent: sentence-level, Doc: document-level, All: trained on all languages in our datase}
\label{tab:human-eval-english} | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 45 |
22,512,313 | 9 | \caption{Chinese - Human Evaluation Results. ZH: Chinese fine-tuning, Sent: sentence-level, Doc: document-level, All: trained on all languages in our dataset, Smelt: Smelting model.}
\label{tab:human-chinese} | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 46 |
22,512,315 | 11 | Our pipelined approach outperformed the baseline approach for both English and Chinese.
For English, BiBL achieved the highest BERTscore, 0.784, and
for Chinese, Smelting achieved a BERTscore of 0.767. | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 48 |
22,512,316 | 12 | This approach proved to be very effective in reducing the amount of UMR terms that appeared in the output, which led to more comprehensible sentences.
The perceived fluency of this approach was validated by the adjudicators of the human evaluation survey. For English, we saw that this approach led to the most fluent ou... | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 49 |
22,512,317 | 13 | While the pipelined approach makes use of AMR graphs as the input of the well-developed ecosystem of AMR technologies, it is also worth noting that UMR contains \emph{more} information than AMR does.
This would suggest that converting from UMR to AMR may result in less accurate generated text (with regard to the UMR-sp... | 2502.11973 | Pipelined Approach | 228,303 | 50 |
22,512,319 | 1 | \subsection{Methods}
We determined which AMR-to-text generation models to fine-tune based on the results from the \Cref{sec:baseline} and \Cref{sec:conversion}, picking the best-performing models for the baseline and pipelined approaches.
Accordingly, the first model we fine-tuned was amrlib, also
following \citet{wein... | 2502.11973 | Fine-tuning Processes | 228,304 | 52 |
22,512,321 | 3 | After having selected these models, we fine-tuned each model using the UMR data.
In order to determine whether document-level information and UMR data of other languages benefit UMR-to-text generation via fine-tuning, we created 8 different datasets:
(1)~sentence-level English data, (2)~sentence-level Chinese data, (... | 2502.11973 | Fine-tuning Processes | 228,304 | 54 |
22,512,322 | 4 | For reproducibility, details of our hyperparameters follow.
For BiBL and SPRING, training occurred over 30 epochs with a constant learning rate of 0.0001, incorporating gradient clipping at 2.5 and dropout regularization at 0.25. The data is processed in batches of 8 with gradient accumulation over 16 steps. To maintai... | 2502.11973 | Fine-tuning Processes | 228,304 | 55 |
22,512,323 | 5 | We fine-tuned mBART-large-50 and MT5 models for 15 epochs (effectively 30 epochs since each training instance is processed twice through silversent and silveramr files) using Adafactor optimization (learning rate=0.0001), batch size 8, and 2-step gradient accumulation, with beam search generation and 1024 token limits.... | 2502.11973 | Fine-tuning Processes | 228,304 | 56 |
22,512,324 | 6 | While the fine-tuning model scores varied more widely than the scores of the individual baseline and pipelined approaches, the best-performing fine-tuning models outperformed the baseline and the pipeline methods.
For English, BiBL and SPRING2 trained on English sentence-level data, as well as BiBL trained on English a... | 2502.11973 | Fine-tuning Processes | 228,304 | 57 |
22,512,325 | 7 | As suggested by the quantitative results, the fine-tuning approach resulted in the generation of highly fluent and accurate sentences, while also revealing unique patterns across all the models. After fine-tuning, amrlib was very successful in generating comprehensible English text along with producing the script for t... | 2502.11973 | Fine-tuning Processes | 228,304 | 58 |
22,512,326 | 8 | The fine-tuned generation models consistently outperformed the fine-tuned LLMs across all three automatic metrics. Gemma's performance notably differed from the other two LLMs due to its architecture as a causal language model rather than a sequence-to-sequence model. The model would continue generating nonsensical tok... | 2502.11973 | Fine-tuning Processes | 228,304 | 59 |
22,512,327 | 9 | The Chinese and English human evaluation scores for the fine-tuned models were also much higher than the baseline scores and reflect that fine-tuning the models can improve both fluency and adequacy. For English, the best fluency score for this approach was 3.44, which was achieved by SPRING being trained on English do... | 2502.11973 | Fine-tuning Processes | 228,304 | 60 |
22,512,328 | 0 | In this work, we developed tools to generate text from Uniform Meaning Representation, introducing three distinct approaches that make use of existing Abstract Meaning Representation technologies to varying degrees. | 2502.11973 | Conclusion | 228,305 | 61 |
22,512,329 | 1 | While the UMR-to-AMR conversion pipeline successfully leverages existing AMR tools, our results indicated that the fine-tuned AMR-to-text generation models were stronger for both English and Chinese.
Further, the best performing models were fine-tuned exclusively on the same language UMR data, suggesting that UMR data ... | 2502.11973 | Conclusion | 228,305 | 62 |
22,512,330 | 2 | Future work may explore advancements toward producing text in other languages from UMR, perhaps leveraging additional external resources.
The annotation and release of additional UMR data will support this effort, as well as improved performance in English and Chinese. | 2502.11973 | Conclusion | 228,305 | 63 |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 8