mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Do Pretrained Contextual Language Models Distinguish between Hebrew Homograph Analyses?

arXiv 2405.07099 ↗First posted 11 May 2024cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Semitic morphologically-rich languages (MRLs) are characterized by extreme word ambiguity. Because most vowels are omitted in standard texts, many of the words are homographs with multiple possible analyses, each with a different pronunciation and different morphosyntactic properties. This ambiguity goes beyond word-sense disambiguation (WSD), and may include token segmentation into multiple word units. Previous research on MRLs claimed that standardly trained pre-trained language models (PLMs) based on word-pieces may not sufficiently capture the internal structure of such tokens in order to distinguish between these analyses. Taking Hebrew as a case study, we investigate the extent to which Hebrew homographs can be disambiguated and analyzed using PLMs. We evaluate all existing models for contextualized Hebrew embeddings on a novel Hebrew homograph challenge sets that we deliver. Our empirical results demonstrate that contemporary Hebrew contextualized embeddings outperform non-contextualized embeddings; and that they are most effective for disambiguating segmentation and morphosyntactic features, less so regarding pure word-sense disambiguation. We show that these embeddings are more effective when the number of word-piece splits is limited, and they are more effective for 2-way and 3-way ambiguities than for 4-way ambiguity. We show that the embeddings are equally effective for homographs of both balanced and skewed distributions, whether calculated as masked or unmasked tokens. Finally, we show that these embeddings are as effective for homograph disambiguation with extensive supervised training as with a few-shot setup.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 May 2024.

Builds on

13 of 31 references.

References · 13

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
  3. 2019What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representationscited by 436
  4. 2019What BERT is not: Lessons from a new suite of psycholinguistic diagnostics for language modelscited by 317
  5. 2019Assessing BERT's Syntactic Abilitiescited by 191
  6. 2020Spying on your neighbors: Fine-grained probing of contextual embeddings for information about surrounding wordscited by 28
  7. 2021AlephBERT:A Hebrew Large Pre-Trained Language Model to Start-off your Hebrew NLP Application Withcited by 28
  8. 2020From SPMRL to NMRL: What Did We Learn (and Unlearn) in a Decade of Parsing Morphologically-Rich Languages (MRLs)?cited by 26
  9. 2020Quantifying the Contextualization of Word Representations with Semantic Class Probingcited by 18
  10. 2019What's Wrong with Hebrew NLP? And How to Make it Rightcited by 16
  11. 2019Probing for Semantic Classes: Diagnosing the Meaning Content of Word Embeddingscited by 15
  12. 2021HeBERT & HebEMO: a Hebrew BERT Model and a Tool for Polarity Analysis and Emotion Recognitioncited by 14
1 more
  1. 2020A Novel Challenge Set for Hebrew Morphological Disambiguation and Diacritics Restorationcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1.

1 paper.