Computational evaluation demonstrates improved multiword expression identification across 26 languages via corpus variant generation, highlighting an effective strategy for token sharing.
Annotated corpora such as the parseme collection frequently contain Multiword Expressions ( mwe s) that share tokens within a sentence, meaning that a single token may belong to two or more mwe s. This phenomenon is widespread across languages and poses a significant challenge for machine learning models that rely on standard sequence-labelling formulations. Token sharing increases training complexity and often leads to systematic prediction errors. As a result, most existing approaches resolve these conflicts by retaining only one of the overlapping mwe s and discarding the others, which entails substantial information loss and can be particularly detrimental in low-resource settings. This paper introduces g-vamp (Generate Variants and Merge Predictions), a general framework that enables mwe identification systems to handle token sharing without discarding annotated expressions or relying on complex encodings. g-vamp operates by generating multiple variants of the training corpus in which token-sharing conflicts are eliminated in a controlled manner. A Transformer-based model is trained independently on each variant, and the resulting predictions are subsequently merged to recover mwe s that involve shared tokens at inference time. We evaluate g-vamp on version 1.3 of the parseme multilingual corpus, covering 26 languages with diverse structural and typological characteristics. The results show that g-vamp consistently improves over a strong baseline in 24 languages and surpasses state-of-the-art systems in 16 languages, despite relying exclusively on a single multilingual Transformer model and no language-specific linguistic resources. These findings demonstrate that controlled corpus diversification constitutes an effective and language-agnostic strategy for addressing token sharing in mwe identification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lanza et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: