We present a method for mining the web for text entered on mobile devices. Using searching, crawling, and parsing techniques, we locate text that can be reliably identified as originating from 300 mobile devices. This includes 341,000 sentences written on iPhones alone. Our data enables a richer understanding of how users type “in the wild” on their mobile devices. We compare text and error characteristics of different device types, such as touchscreen phones, phones with physical keyboards, and tablet computers. Using our mined data, we train language models and evaluate these models on mobile test data. A mixture model trained on our mined data, Twitter, blog, and forum data predicts mobile text better than baseline models. Using phone and smartwatch typing data from 135 users, we demonstrate our models improve the recognition accuracy and word predictions of a state-of-the-art touchscreen virtual keyboard decoder. Finally, we make our language models and mined dataset available to other researchers.

In this article, we investigate using deep neural networks with different word representation techniques for named entity recognition (NER) on Turkish noisy text. We argue that valuable latent features for NER can, in fact, be learned without using any hand-crafted features and/or domain-specific resources such as gazetteers and lexicons. In this regard, we utilize character-level, character n-gram-level, morpheme-level, and orthographic character-level word representations. Since noisy data with NER annotation are scarce for Turkish, we introduce a transfer learning model in order to learn infrequent entity types as an extension to the Bi-LSTM-CRF architecture by incorporating an additional conditional random field (CRF) layer that is trained on a larger (but formal) text and a noisy text simultaneously. This allows us to learn from both formal and informal/noisy text, thus improving the performance of our model further for rarely seen entity types. We experimented on Turkish as a morphologically rich language and English as a relatively morphologically poor language. We obtained an entity-level F1 score of 67.39% on Turkish noisy data and 45.30% on English noisy data, which outperforms the current state-of-art models on noisy text. The English scores are lower compared to Turkish scores because of the intense sparsity in the data introduced by the user writing styles. The results prove that using subword information significantly contributes to learning latent features for morphologically rich languages.

We present the novel task of understanding multi-sentence entity-seeking questions (MSEQs), that is, the questions that may be expressed in multiple sentences, and that expect one or more entities as an answer. We formulate the problem of understanding MSEQs as a semantic labeling task over an open representation that makes minimal assumptions about schema or ontology-specific semantic vocabulary. At the core of our model, we use a BiLSTM (bidirectional LSTM) conditional random field (CRF), and to overcome the challenges of operating with low training data, we supplement it by using BERT embeddings, hand-designed features, as well as hard and soft constraints spanning multiple sentences. We find that this results in a 12–15 points gain over a vanilla BiLSTM CRF. We demonstrate the strengths of our work using the novel task of answering real-world entity-seeking questions from the tourism domain. The use of our labels helps answer 36% more questions with 35% more (relative) accuracy as compared to baselines. We also demonstrate how our framework can rapidly enable the parsing of MSEQs in an entirely new domain with small amounts of training data and little change in the semantic representation.

Efficiently exploiting all sources of information such as labeled instances, classes’ representation, and relations of them has a high impact on the performance of Multi-Label Text Classification (MLTC) systems. Most of the current approaches use labeled documents as the primary source of information for MLTC. We investigate the effectiveness of different sources of information— such as the labeled training data, textual labels of classes, and taxonomy relations of classes— for MLTC. More specifically, first, for each document–class pair, different features are extracted using different sources of information. The features reflect the similarity of classes and documents. Then, MLTC is considered to be a ranking problem, and a learning to rank (LTR) approach is used for ranking classes regarding documents and selecting labels of documents. An important characteristic of many MLTC instances is that documents can belong to multiple classes and there are implicit relations between classes. We apply score propagation on top of LTR to incorporate co-occurrence patterns of classes in labeled documents. Our main findings are the following. First, using an LTR approach integrating all features, we observe significantly better performance than previous systems for MLTC. Specifically, we show that simple classification approaches fail when there is a high number of classes. Second, the analysis of feature weights reveals the relative importance of various sources of evidence, also giving insight into the underlying classification problem. Interestingly, the results indicate that the titles of documents are more informative than all other sources of information. Third, a lean-and-mean system using only four features is able to perform at 96% of the large LTR model that we propose in this paper. Fourth, using the co-occurrence information of classes helps in classifying documents more accurately. Our results show that the co-occurrence information is more helpful when the underlying classifier has a poor performance.

GPT-3 made the mainstream media headlines this year, generating far more interest than we’d normally expect of a technical advance in NLP. People are fascinated by its ability to produce apparently novel text that reads as if it was written by a human. But what kind of practical applications can we expect to see, and can they be trusted?