arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
​通知:联邦节假日调休:哥伦布日 / 原住民日(Columbus Day / Indigenous Peoples' Day),今日(13日)无更新。
arXiv 2209.03895cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG

IDIAPers @ Causal News Corpus 2022:通过基于提示的少样本方法实现高效因果关系识别

IDIAPers @ Causal News Corpus 2022: Efficient Causal Relation Identification Through a Prompt-based Few-shot Approach

Idiap Research Institute(Idiap研究所);Universidad Nacional de San Luis (UNSL)(圣路易斯国立大学);Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne(洛桑联邦理工学院);Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Unidad Cuajimalpa(墨西哥都会自治大学夸伊马尔帕分校);Brno University of Technology(布尔诺理工大学)

Sergio Burdisso, Juan Zuluaga-Gomez, Esau Villatoro-Tello, Martin Fajcik, Muskaan Singh, Pavel Smrz, Petr Motlicek

AI总结:

本研究针对因果关系识别任务,提出将其转化为掩码语言建模问题的基于提示的少样本微调方法,仅用15.7%的训练数据就取得了接近全量数据集成模型的优异性能。

摘要:

本文介绍了我们参与CASE-2022子任务1——使用Causal News Corpus(因果新闻语料库)进行事件因果关系识别——的相关工作。我们针对因果关系识别(CRI)任务,采用了一组简单且互补的技术,在少量标注样本(即少样本设置)下微调语言模型(LMs)。我们遵循基于提示的预测方法来微调语言模型,将CRI任务转化为掩码语言建模(MLM)问题。该方法使得原生以MLM任务预训练的语言模型能够直接生成针对CRI特定提示的文本响应。我们将该方法的性能与在全量数据集上训练的集成技术进行了对比。我们表现最佳的提交模型仅使用每类256个样本(占全部可用数据的15.7%)进行微调,却取得了第二高的精确率(0.82)、第三高的准确率(0.82),且F1值(0.85)非常接近冠军团队报告的结果(0.86)。

英文摘要:

In this paper, we describe our participation in the subtask 1 of CASE-2022, Event Causality Identification with Casual News Corpus. We address the Causal Relation Identification (CRI) task by exploiting a set of simple yet complementary techniques for fine-tuning language models (LMs) on a small number of annotated examples (i.e., a few-shot configuration). We follow a prompt-based prediction approach for fine-tuning LMs in which the CRI task is treated as a masked language modeling problem (MLM). This approach allows LMs natively pre-trained on MLM problems to directly generate textual responses to CRI-specific prompts. We compare the performance of this method against ensemble techniques trained on the entire dataset. Our best-performing submission was fine-tuned with only 256 instances per class, 15.7% of the all available data, and yet obtained the second-best precision (0.82), third-best accuracy (0.82), and an F1-score (0.85) very close to what was reported by the winner team (0.86).

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑