The State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP World
Table 4: Class-wise (1/MRR) for each conference.
['[BOLD] Conf / Class', '[BOLD] 0', '[BOLD] 1', '[BOLD] 2', '[BOLD] 3', '[BOLD] 4', '[BOLD] 5\xa0']
The smaller the inverse MRR value, the more inclusive that conference is to that language class. All-Inclusive Looking at the combined trends, both the entropy plots and the MRR figures suggest that LREC and WS have been the most inclusive across all categories and have been continuing to do so over the years. A ray of hope With regards to the proceedings of ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, LREC, we note a marked spike in entropy in the 2010s, which is absent in other conferences. This might be due to the increased buzz surrounding cross-lingual techniques. The later the merrier An interesting point to note is that conferences which started later have taken lessons from past in matters of language inclusion. While the earlier established conferences have continued to maintain interest in a particular underlying theme of research which may or may not favour multilingual systems. This can be observed in : COLING, ACL, EACL, EMNLP ( order of their start dates).Falling off the radar While the dip in ranks is more forgiving for conferences such as LREC, WS , it is more stark in CONLL, TACL, SEMEVAL.