No abstract

This article describes the system submitted by the Citius Ixa Imaxin team to the VarDial 2017 (DSL and GDI tasks). The strategy underlying our system is based on a language distance computed by means of model perplexity. The best model configuration we have tested is a voting system making use of several n-grams models of both words and characters, even if word unigrams turned out to be a very competitive model with reasonable results in the tasks we have participated. An error analysis has been performed in which we identified many test examples with no linguistic evidences to distinguish among the variants.

Language identification, as the task of determining the language a given text is written in, has progressed substantially in recent decades. However, three main issues remain still unresolved: (i) distinction of similar languages, (ii) detection of multilingualism in a single document, and (iii) identifying the language of short texts. In this paper, we describe our work on the development of a benchmark to encourage further research in these three directions, set forth an evaluation framework suitable for the task, and make a dataset of annotated tweets publicly available for research purposes. We also describe the shared task we organized to validate and assess the evaluation framework and dataset with systems submitted by seven different participants, and analyze the performance of these systems. The evaluation of the results submitted by the participants of the shared task helped us shed some light on the shortcomings of state-of-the-art language identification systems, and gives insight into the extent to which the brevity, multilingualism, and language similarity found in texts exacerbate the performance of language identifiers. Our dataset with nearly 35,000 tweets and the evaluation framework provide researchers and practitioners with suitable resources to further study the aforementioned issues on language identification within a common setting that enables to compare results with one another.

The fifth QA campaign at CLEF [1], having its first edition in 2003, offered not only a main task but an Answer Validation Exercise (AVE) [2], which continued last year's pilot, and a new pilot: the Question Answering on Speech Transcripts (QAST) [3, 15]. The main task was characterized by the focus on cross-linguality, while covering as many European languages as possible. As novelty, some QA pairs were grouped in clusters. Every cluster was characterized by a topic (not given to participants). The questions from a cluster possibly contain co-references between one of them and the others. Finally, the need for searching answers in web formats was satisfied by introducing Wikipedia 1 as document corpus. The results and the analyses reported by the participants suggest that the introduction of Wikipedia and the topic related questions led to a drop in systems' performance.

Abstract. This paper describes the first round of ResPubliQA, a Question Answering (QA) evaluation task over European legislation, proposed at the Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) 2009. The exercise consists of extracting a relevant paragraph of text that satisfies completely the information need expressed by a natural language question. The general goals of this exercise are (i) to study if the current QA technologies tuned for newswire collections and Wikipedia can be adapted to a new domain (law in this case); (ii) to move to a more realistic scenario, considering people close to law as users, and paragraphs as system output; (iii) to compare current QA technologies with pure Information Retrieval (IR) approaches; and (iv) to introduce in QA systems the Answer Validation technologies developed in the past three years. The paper describes the task in more detail, presenting the different types of questions, the methodology for the creation of the test sets and the new evaluation measure, and analyzing the results obtained by systems and the more successful approaches. Eleven groups participated with 28 runs. In addition, we evaluated 16 baseline runs (2 per language) based only in pure IR approach, for comparison purposes. Considering accuracy, scores were generally higher than in previous QA campaigns.