REVIEW 2 cited by
Diverse Few-Shot Text Classification with Multiple Metrics
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
We study few-shot learning in natural language domains. Compared to many existing works that apply either metric-based or optimization-based meta-learning to image domain with low inter-task variance, we consider a more realistic setting, where tasks are diverse. However, it imposes tremendous difficulties to existing state-of-the-art metric-based algorithms since a single metric is insufficient to capture complex task variations in natural language domain. To alleviate the problem, we propose an adaptive metric learning approach that automatically determines the best weighted combination from a set of metrics obtained from meta-training tasks for a newly seen few-shot task. Extensive quantitative evaluations on real-world sentiment analysis and dialog intent classification datasets demonstrate that the proposed method performs favorably against state-of-the-art few shot learning algorithms in terms of predictive accuracy. We make our code and data available for further study.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Few-shot Text Classification with Distributional Signatures
A few-shot text classifier that learns attention from distributional word statistics (frequency and class skew) generalizes to unseen classes better than lexical-feature meta-learners.
-
Towards Realistic Practices In Low-Resource Natural Language Processing: The Development Set
Using a development set for early stopping can change reported accuracy for low-resource NLP models, with per-language differences up to 18 percentage points compared to tuning training length on other languages.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.