Semi-automated annotation and active learning for language documentation

dc.contributor.advisorBaldridge, Jasonen
dc.contributor.advisorErk, Katrinen
dc.contributor.committeeMemberEngland, Noraen
dc.contributor.committeeMemberMooney, Raymonden
dc.contributor.committeeMemberWoodbury, Anthonyen
dc.creatorPalmer, Alexis Maryen
dc.date.accessioned2013-04-03T15:44:25Zen
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-11T22:32:20Z
dc.date.available2017-05-11T22:32:20Z
dc.date.issued2009-12en
dc.date.submittedDecember 2009en
dc.date.updated2013-04-03T15:44:25Zen
dc.descriptiontexten
dc.description.abstractBy the end of this century, half of the approximately 6000 extant languages will cease to be transmitted from one generation to the next. The field of language documentation seeks to make a record of endangered languages before they reach the point of extinction, while they are still in use. The work of documenting and describing a language is difficult and extremely time-consuming, and resources are extremely limited. Developing efficient methods for making lasting records of languages may increase the amount of documentation achieved within budget restrictions. This thesis approaches the problem from the perspective of computational linguistics, asking whether and how automated language processing can reduce human annotation effort when very little labeled data is available for model training. The task addressed is morpheme labeling for the Mayan language Uspanteko, and we test the effectiveness of two complementary types of machine support: (a) learner-guided selection of examples for annotation (active learning); and (b) annotator access to the predictions of the learned model (semi-automated annotation). Active learning (AL) has been shown to increase efficacy of annotation effort for many different tasks. Most of the reported results, however, are from studies which simulate annotation, often assuming a single, infallible oracle. In our studies, crucially, annotation is not simulated but rather performed by human annotators. We measure and record the time spent on each annotation, which in turn allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of machine support in terms of actual annotation effort. We report three main findings with respect to active learning. First, in order for efficiency gains reported from active learning to be meaningful for realistic annotation scenarios, the type of cost measurement used to gauge those gains must faithfully reflect the actual annotation cost. Second, the relative effectiveness of different selection strategies in AL seems to depend in part on the characteristics of the annotator, so it is important to model the individual oracle or annotator when choosing a selection strategy. And third, the cost of labeling a given instance from a sample is not a static value but rather depends on the context in which it is labeled. We report two main findings with respect to semi-automated annotation. First, machine label suggestions have the potential to increase annotator efficacy, but the degree of their impact varies by annotator, with annotator expertise a likely contributing factor. At the same time, we find that implementation and interface must be handled very carefully if we are to accurately measure gains from semi-automated annotation. Together these findings suggest that simulated annotation studies fail to model crucial human factors inherent to applying machine learning strategies in real annotation settings.en
dc.description.departmentLinguisticsen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2152/19805en
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.subjectActive learningen
dc.subjectComputational linguisticsen
dc.subjectLanguage documentationen
dc.subjectLanguage endangermenten
dc.subjectUspantekoen
dc.subjectSemi-automated annotationen
dc.subjectInterlinear texten
dc.subjectAnnotator expertiseen
dc.titleSemi-automated annotation and active learning for language documentationen

Files