Elazar and Goldberg (2018) showed that protected attributes can be extracted from the representations of a debiased neural network for mention detection at above-chance levels, by evaluating a diagnostic classifier on a heldout subsample of the data it was trained on. We revisit their experiments and conduct a series of follow-up experiments showing that, in fact, the diagnostic classifier generalizes poorly to both new in-domain samples and new domains, indicating that it relies on correlations specific to their particular data sample. We further show that a diagnostic classifier trained on the biased baseline neural network also does not generalize to new samples. In other words, the biases detected in Elazar and Goldberg (2018) seem restricted to their particular data sample, and would therefore not bias the decisions of the model on new samples, whether in-domain or out-of-domain. In light of this, we discuss better methodologies for detecting bias in our models.

Parsers are available for only a handful of the world's languages, since they require lots of training data. How far can we get with just a small amount of training data? We systematically compare a set of simple strategies for improving low-resource parsers: data augmentation, which has not been tested before; cross-lingual training; and transliteration. Experimenting on three typologically diverse low-resource languages-North Sámi, Galician, and Kazah-We find that (1) when only the low-resource treebank is available, data augmentation is very helpful; (2) when a related high-resource treebank is available, cross-lingual training is helpful and complements data augmentation; and (3) when the high-resource treebank uses a different writing system, transliteration into a shared orthographic spaces is also very helpful.

We introduce a novel discriminative latentvariable model for the task of bilingual lexicon induction. Our model combines the bipartite matching dictionary prior of Haghighi et al. (2008) with a state-of-the-art embeddingbased approach. To train the model, we derive an efficient Viterbi EM algorithm. We provide empirical improvements on six language pairs under two metrics and show that the prior theoretically and empirically helps to mitigate the hubness problem. We also demonstrate how previous work may be viewed as a similarly fashioned latent-variable model, albeit with a different prior. 1

In the principles-and-parameters framework, the structural features of languages depend on parameters that may be toggled on or off, with a single parameter often dictating the status of multiple features. The implied covariance between features inspires our probabilisation of this line of linguistic inquirywe develop a generative model of language based on exponential-family matrix factorisation. By modelling all languages and features within the same architecture, we show how structural similarities between languages can be exploited to predict typological features with near-perfect accuracy, outperforming several baselines on the task of predicting heldout features. Furthermore, we show that language embeddings pre-trained on monolingual text allow for generalisation to unobserved languages. This finding has clear practical and also theoretical implications: the results confirm what linguists have hypothesised, i.e. that there are significant correlations between typological features and languages.

The task of bilingual dictionary induction (BDI) is commonly used for intrinsic evaluation of cross-lingual word embeddings. The largest dataset for BDI was generated automatically, so its quality is dubious. We study the composition and quality of the test sets for five diverse languages from this dataset, with concerning findings: (1) a quarter of the data consists of proper nouns, which can be hardly indicative of BDI performance, and (2) there are pervasive gaps in the gold-standard targets. These issues appear to affect the ranking between cross-lingual embedding systems on individual languages, and the overall degree to which the systems differ in performance. With proper nouns removed from the data, the margin between the top two systems included in the study grows from 3.4% to 17.2%. Manual verification of the predictions, on the other hand, reveals that gaps in the gold standard targets artificially inflate the margin between the two systems on English to Bulgarian BDI from 0.1% to 6.7%. We thus suggest that future research either avoids drawing conclusions from quantitative results on this BDI dataset, or accompanies such evaluation with rigorous error analysis.