Misspelled search queries in e-commerce can lead to empty or irrelevant products. Besides inadvertent typing mistakes, most spell mistakes occur because the user does not know the correct spelling, hence typing it as it is pronounced colloquially. This colloquial typing creates countless misspelling patterns for a single correct query. In this paper, we first systematically analyze and group different spell errors into error classes and then leverage the state-of-the-art Transformer model for contextual spell correction. We overcome the constraint of limited human labelled data by proposing novel synthetic data generation techniques for voluminous generation of training pairs needed by data hungry Transformers, without any human intervention. We further utilize weakly supervised data coupled with curriculum learning strategies to improve on tough spell mistakes without regressing on the easier ones. We show significant improvements from our model on human labeled data and online A/B experiments against multiple state-of-art models.

Given the success of Transformer-based models, two directions of study have emerged: interpreting role of individual attention heads and down-sizing the models for efficiency. Our work straddles these two streams: We analyse the importance of basing pruning strategies on the interpreted role of the attention heads. We evaluate this on Transformer and BERT models on multiple NLP tasks. Firstly, we find that a large fraction of the attention heads can be randomly pruned with limited effect on accuracy. Secondly, for Transformers, we find no advantage in pruning attention heads identified to be important based on existing studies that relate importance to the location of a head. On the BERT model too we find no preference for top or bottom layers, though the latter are reported to have higher importance. However, strategies that avoid pruning middle layers and consecutive layers perform better. Finally, during fine-tuning the compensation for pruned attention heads is roughly equally distributed across the un-pruned heads. Our results thus suggest that interpretation of attention heads does not strongly inform pruning.