StanfordMalRules

Discussion: Mal-rules (@ DELPH-IN 2016)

led by Luis Morgado

17 June 2016 (Day 2)

---

Scribes: Francis Bond, David Moeljadi, Wenjie Wang

---

[Summary of discussion topic] Luis introduced the idea of using MT to help divine the student's intent when they have made a mistake (now funded by MOE) --- see last year's slides. How can we integrate mal-rules into the grammar development? Is it ok for the mal-rules to be not so elegant? How much should we treat them as part of the grammar? How can we coordinate work?

---

[Discussion begins]

Emily:

• Some experience in working on the grammars, with collaborators living in timezones that differ by 9, 10 hours. A key piece of that to that is regression testing; [incr tsdb()], and a good test suite. I think one thing critical is documenting the malrules that you intend to capture.

• Having test suite of malrules is critical.

• How elegant should one be in writing these rules? Two issues I would worry about:

• 1. To what extend are these rules one-off?
  2. The other question is how is the parse-selection machine going to work?

• In practical applications, you not only develop them, you need them to come up when you want them, and not when you don't want them. And the right one to come up. And I don't know to what extend having well-crafted systems where maybe certain rules participate together to come up with the configuration with the error is better or worse than "here's one weird rule that handles this case".

Luis:

• I think I may not have been clear about this. The idea would be to strip down the grammar, building in an on-off switch. Ultimately, we want a grammar for each student. So if I know which confidence they have, and I know that they have not seen things, then this rule wouldn't fire up. So it's useless; it's just noise, with a complexity that I don't care for.
• So basically, I want a system that needs to be every rule. It needs to be up to a point that encodes a level of complexity that ideally will be based on your level of syntactic knowledge. The only thing we found is by levels, basically.
• But ideally, it would be by student. But even by level, you can, for example, say that this year has two levels (first and second semester), and has two different complexities that I can parse in the grammar. If it's out of the scope, we'd say something like "don't try anything out of the bag! Just use the constructions that you learnt in class." So we are not going to be "this doesn't exist".
• We wouldn't care if they are doing perfect sentences — if it's not in the curriculum, we would say something that reminds them to keep to the curriculum. Show me what you know, that I've taught you. Which is the kind of thing (we won't be able to do ??), to shave off this kind of complexity and so that malrules can actually appear when they are fired.

Rebecca:

• So you are thinking of having a parse-selection model, a really generic one, or...?

Luis:

• I don't want a parse-selection model. I want a grammar building... selection one.

Emily:

• You are going to need parse-selection model, because when the grammar gets bigger, it's going to show some ambiguity. You will have multiple versions of a grammar, and you might end up wanting multiple parse-selection models, and there will be a lot of treebanking to do.

FCB:

• Because the sentences in the corpus will be marked with different levels, we can train on different subsets of the corpus.

Luis:

• We will have access to learner-corpora based on work done by Singapore students. There will be some treebanking involved. Ideally, it will be recursively improving. I don't want to have too much treebanking.

Antske:

• The complexity, and also how you want to deal with different versions of the grammar, really depends what you want to teach, and what kind of feedback you want to get. There is in gclimb a version that does adjective training. A simple grammar. It was written in a way that can tell you what you are not paying attention to (you got the wrong gender, wrong case, etc). For training at low levels, you might not need a parse-selection model, because you just make the variation small (?).

Luis:

• Yes, that's the idea. We will start small. Eventually, we can ask for more years to work on it.

Antske:

• You should perhaps be climbing -- some code generation would be good

Luis:

• So the question is, to climb or not to climb? How difficult will it be to implement it as a web service? Need something that can do on-the-fly selection. I would like to understand the backend of climb. We can discuss this in the SIG.

Emily:

• While you can get away, with the shared-grammar stuff in ZHONG, for multiple versions of the same grammar, you'll really (really really) want climb.

Woodley:

• You were talking about turning constraints on and off at the sub-rule level... are you just talking about turning individual rules on and off? (sub-constraints or whole rules?)

Luis:

• To turn rules on and off, you need to have a copy of the rule that has been simplified in a way. I will have a simple rule that constraints that constraints what I don't want the grammar to know about just yet, and then if I am using the grammar for that complexity level, then I use this version of this rule, and it's blocking everything else. But if we do this for zillions of rules, we will be losing all the elegance. So the other side of the question was whether we need to do this for malrules or not. They are more singleton.

Woodley:

• A request from Dan, to change the list of active rules as a command line option The root condition was a list of rules that are enabled or disabled. ACE can help you with this.

Glenn:

• We certainly have that for the generator, and I ?? has it for the parser as well. It's just a list of which rules are active in the parser, generator, or both. It's trivial for all the systems to implement.

Luis:

• Difficult part of doing that is you will need some part of some rule at some point. It depends on how they split. Might (??) rules altogether.

Glenn:

• It puts the onus on you to create duplicate copies of each rule, and modify it to each individual case, and make sure you only turn on one at a time only.

Luis.

• Yes, but if you have multiple copies, you end up creating different versions of the grammar. But yes, in the end, if you don't fire it up anyway, it will probably be similar.

Glenn:

• That which Woodley and I alluded to is kind of the simplest way to do meta-grammar.

Luis:

• When you change a good rule, what is the workflow? (For Dan) Are your malrules independent enough, that you don't have to worry about them?

Dan:

• Mostly I worry. I have separate file that contains a mix of copies of the existing standard rules, plus some [mal,?] purely phenomena-specific rules. They are gathered in one file. But the documentation for this is not perfect.. Issue of coherence and stability is crucial, and is not a solved problem.

Ping:

• Are malrules treated like standard rules?

Dan:

• They look exactly the same --- currently they are not used at all in a treebank; I will do that if and when I have to they are loaded as a different grammar.

Ping:

• When doing parse selection, do you take into consideration whether this part is fired by the malrules or not?

Dan:

• If I had more resources, I would have trained a very large corpus that contains malrule data, and so I can see the frequency of the uses of those mal-rules, in competition with the main grammar rules. Unfortunately, I have not built such a treebank, which would have trained a customised model that could see when a malrule was chosen or not.

Glenn:

• But they are all disabled by root choice, right?

Dan:

• In ordinary use, those wouldn't even load. If they were loaded, they can still be constrained. I had different grammar config file for the malrule case.

Luis:

• Before turning it off, there's no cost? If you turn them off, will you still try to do anything with them?

Glenn:

• No, they are completely gone.

Woodley:

• Implemented for transfer rules. So you can turn transfer rules on/off, but not for syntax rules.

Glenn:

• I thought you have that for syntax rules?

Woodley:

• It's configurable (?)

Glenn:

• So there are three ways to do it:
  • Modify whole config. of grammar; have a different grammar config.
  • Could use trivial modification read from a list that says which rule to turn on or off, given a single grammar.
  • Do in root condition, but it has a runtime impact.

Francis:

• In the current set of malrules, do you have a feel of how much they expand the search space?

Dan:

• Some of those malrules can be really expensive. If I allow every preposition "in" to be a possible mis-spelling of the copula "is" (happens distressingly often enough...), that will be really expensive. No simple answer, but certainly there can be malrules that can be expensive.

Luis:

• We have a layer approach: we parse the good grammar first, and then on the expanded and most important malrules, so that you can solve the problem of full expansion.

Dan:

• That will take us backward. There are many instances where I can find ridiculous but technically grammatical analyses for a sentence which is just transparently the subject of an error. The parser would have told me it's a really weird analysis.

Luis:

• Say you want to do that "in"/"is" conversion, as a desperation robust grammar? The things I will never want to do at runtime, I'll just have exhausted all the other malrules.

Glenn

• It's a burnt-in premise is that our parsers are exhaustive.

Luis:

• But if you have both of them, then you are doing an explosion of prime combinatorics (?). If you just save it for last, the you already know it's one of those five malrules that you'll never want to try to combine with any other malrule.

Glenn:

• It will have to be two separate parse iterations.

Luis:

• Yes.

Glenn:

• Ok.

Dan:

• Short answer — no. I don't think will be productive. I haven't tried it. Might be a safety net for certain classes of poisonous malrules.

FCB:

• We should list this down as an SIG.

(SIG topic proposed)