Skip to main content

Showing 1–3 of 3 results for author: Lysyuk, M

.
  1. arXiv:2310.07008  [pdf, other

    cs.CL cs.AI cs.IR cs.LG

    Answer Candidate Type Selection: Text-to-Text Language Model for Closed Book Question Answering Meets Knowledge Graphs

    Authors: Mikhail Salnikov, Maria Lysyuk, Pavel Braslavski, Anton Razzhigaev, Valentin Malykh, Alexander Panchenko

    Abstract: Pre-trained Text-to-Text Language Models (LMs), such as T5 or BART yield promising results in the Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) task. However, the capacity of the models is limited and the quality decreases for questions with less popular entities. In this paper, we present a novel approach which works on top of the pre-trained Text-to-Text QA system to address this issue. Our simple y… ▽ More

    Submitted 10 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

  2. arXiv:2212.14293  [pdf, other

    cs.CL

    Error syntax aware augmentation of feedback comment generation dataset

    Authors: Nikolay Babakov, Maria Lysyuk, Alexander Shvets, Lilya Kazakova, Alexander Panchenko

    Abstract: This paper presents a solution to the GenChal 2022 shared task dedicated to feedback comment generation for writing learning. In terms of this task given a text with an error and a span of the error, a system generates an explanatory note that helps the writer (language learner) to improve their writing skills. Our solution is based on fine-tuning the T5 model on the initial dataset augmented acco… ▽ More

    Submitted 29 December, 2022; originally announced December 2022.

    Comments: Accepted to publication on INLG 2023

  3. arXiv:2205.05070  [pdf, other

    cs.IR cs.LG

    Tensor-based Collaborative Filtering With Smooth Ratings Scale

    Authors: Nikita Marin, Elizaveta Makhneva, Maria Lysyuk, Vladimir Chernyy, Ivan Oseledets, Evgeny Frolov

    Abstract: Conventional collaborative filtering techniques don't take into consideration the effect of discrepancy in users' rating perception. Some users may rarely give 5 stars to items while others almost always assign 5 stars to the chosen item. Even if they had experience with the same items this systematic discrepancy in their evaluation style will lead to the systematic errors in the ability of recomm… ▽ More

    Submitted 10 May, 2022; originally announced May 2022.

    Comments: Draft version, submitted for review; 14 pages, 3 tables, 2 figures