Papers › An Empirical Revisiting of Linguistic Knowledge Fusion in Language Understanding Tasks

An Empirical Revisiting of Linguistic Knowledge Fusion in Language Understanding Tasks

24 Oct 2022arXiv:2210.13002archive 2025-07-28

Changlong Yu, Tianyi Xiao, Lingpeng Kong, Yangqiu Song, Wilfred Ng

Though linguistic knowledge emerges during large-scale language model pretraining, recent work attempt to explicitly incorporate human-defined linguistic priors into task-specific fine-tuning. Infusing language models with syntactic or semantic knowledge from parsers has shown improvements on many language understanding tasks. To further investigate the effectiveness of structural linguistic priors, we conduct empirical study of replacing parsed graphs or trees with trivial ones (rarely carrying linguistic knowledge e.g., balanced tree) for tasks in the GLUE benchmark. Encoding with trivial graphs achieves competitive or even better performance in fully-supervised and few-shot settings. It reveals that the gains might not be significantly attributed to explicit linguistic priors but rather to more feature interactions brought by fusion layers. Hence we call for attention to using trivial graphs as necessary baselines to design advanced knowledge fusion methods in the future.

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

hkust-knowcomp/revisit-nlu-linguistic-knowledge officialmentioned in paperpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Language ModelingLanguage Modelling

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections