mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Empirical Error Modeling Improves Robustness of Noisy Neural Sequence Labeling

arXiv 2105.11872 ↗First posted 25 May 2021cs.CLcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Despite recent advances, standard sequence labeling systems often fail when processing noisy user-generated text or consuming the output of an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process. In this paper, we improve the noise-aware training method by proposing an empirical error generation approach that employs a sequence-to-sequence model trained to perform translation from error-free to erroneous text. Using an OCR engine, we generated a large parallel text corpus for training and produced several real-world noisy sequence labeling benchmarks for evaluation. Moreover, to overcome the data sparsity problem that exacerbates in the case of imperfect textual input, we learned noisy language model-based embeddings. Our approach outperformed the baseline noise generation and error correction techniques on the erroneous sequence labeling data sets. To facilitate future research on robustness, we make our code, embeddings, and data conversion scripts publicly available.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 May 2021.

Builds on

24 of 53 references.

References · 24

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
  3. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
  4. 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,462
  5. 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,285
  6. 2017Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networkscited by 1,281
  7. 2015Effective Approaches to Attention-based Neural Machine Translationcited by 1,024
  8. 2015Improving Neural Machine Translation Models with Monolingual Datacited by 784
  9. 2017Synthetic and Natural Noise Both Break Neural Machine Translationcited by 304
  10. 2017OpenNMT: Open-source Toolkit for Neural Machine Translationcited by 251
  11. 2017Data Noising as Smoothing in Neural Network Language Modelscited by 78
  12. 2020Robust Encodings: A Framework for Combating Adversarial Typoscited by 58
12 more
  1. 2019Corpora Generation for Grammatical Error Correctioncited by 53
  2. 2019Training on Synthetic Noise Improves Robustness to Natural Noise in Machine Translationcited by 52
  3. 2019A Neural Grammatical Error Correction System Built On Better Pre-training and Sequential Transfer Learningcited by 26
  4. 2017How Robust Are Character-Based Word Embeddings in Tagging and MT Against Wrod Scramlbing or Randdm Nouse?cited by 23
  5. 2019Misspelling Oblivious Word Embeddingscited by 19
  6. 2020NAT: Noise-Aware Training for Robust Neural Sequence Labelingcited by 17
  7. 2019Sequence Tagging with Contextual and Non-Contextual Subword Representations: A Multilingual Evaluationcited by 14
  8. 2017Artificial Error Generation with Machine Translation and Syntactic Patternscited by 11
  9. 2018Wronging a Right: Generating Better Errors to Improve Grammatical Error Detectioncited by 11
  10. 2019From the Paft to the Fiiture: a Fully Automatic NMT and Word Embeddings Method for OCR Post-Correctioncited by 7
  11. 2016Still not there? Comparing Traditional Sequence-to-Sequence Models to Encoder-Decoder Neural Networks on Monotone String Translation Taskscited by 6
  12. 2019Assessing the Tolerance of Neural Machine Translation Systems Against Speech Recognition Errorscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 3.

8 papers.