File size: 76,168 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 | {
"paper_id": "P02-1017",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:30:51.589343Z"
},
"title": "A Generative Constituent-Context Model for Improved Grammar Induction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Stanford University Stanford",
"location": {
"postCode": "94305-9040",
"region": "CA"
}
},
"email": "klein@cs.stanford.edu"
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Stanford University Stanford",
"location": {
"postCode": "94305-9040",
"region": "CA"
}
},
"email": "manning@cs.stanford.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We present a generative distributional model for the unsupervised induction of natural language syntax which explicitly models constituent yields and contexts. Parameter search with EM produces higher quality analyses than previously exhibited by unsupervised systems, giving the best published unsupervised parsing results on the ATIS corpus. Experiments on Penn treebank sentences of comparable length show an even higher F 1 of 71% on nontrivial brackets. We compare distributionally induced and actual part-of-speech tags as input data, and examine extensions to the basic model. We discuss errors made by the system, compare the system to previous models, and discuss upper bounds, lower bounds, and stability for this task.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P02-1017",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We present a generative distributional model for the unsupervised induction of natural language syntax which explicitly models constituent yields and contexts. Parameter search with EM produces higher quality analyses than previously exhibited by unsupervised systems, giving the best published unsupervised parsing results on the ATIS corpus. Experiments on Penn treebank sentences of comparable length show an even higher F 1 of 71% on nontrivial brackets. We compare distributionally induced and actual part-of-speech tags as input data, and examine extensions to the basic model. We discuss errors made by the system, compare the system to previous models, and discuss upper bounds, lower bounds, and stability for this task.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The task of inducing hierarchical syntactic structure from observed yields alone has received a great deal of attention (Carroll and Charniak, 1992; Pereira and Schabes, 1992; Brill, 1993; Stolcke and Omohundro, 1994) . Researchers have explored this problem for a variety of reasons: to argue empirically against the poverty of the stimulus (Clark, 2001) , to use induction systems as a first stage in constructing large treebanks (van Zaanen, 2000) , or to build better language models (Baker, 1979; Chen, 1995) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 148,
"text": "(Carroll and Charniak, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 175,
"text": "Pereira and Schabes, 1992;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 188,
"text": "Brill, 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 217,
"text": "Stolcke and Omohundro, 1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 355,
"text": "(Clark, 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 432,
"end": 450,
"text": "(van Zaanen, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 488,
"end": 501,
"text": "(Baker, 1979;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 502,
"end": 513,
"text": "Chen, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In previous work, we presented a conditional model over trees which gave the best published results for unsupervised parsing of the ATIS corpus (Klein and Manning, 2001b) . However, it suffered from several drawbacks, primarily stemming from the conditional model used for induction. Here, we improve on that model in several ways. First, we construct a generative model which utilizes the same features. Then, we extend the model to allow multiple constituent types and multiple prior distribu-tions over trees. The new model gives a 13% reduction in parsing error on WSJ sentence experiments, including a positive qualitative shift in error types. Additionally, it produces much more stable results, does not require heavy smoothing, and exhibits a reliable correspondence between the maximized objective and parsing accuracy. It is also much faster, not requiring a fitting phase for each iteration. Klein and Manning (2001b) and Clark (2001) take treebank part-of-speech sequences as input. We followed this for most experiments, but in section 4.3, we use distributionally induced tags as input. Performance with induced tags is somewhat reduced, but still gives better performance than previous models.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 170,
"text": "(Klein and Manning, 2001b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 903,
"end": 928,
"text": "Klein and Manning (2001b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 933,
"end": 945,
"text": "Clark (2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Early work on grammar induction emphasized heuristic structure search, where the primary induction is done by incrementally adding new productions to an initially empty grammar (Olivier, 1968; Wolff, 1988) . In the early 1990s, attempts were made to do grammar induction by parameter search, where the broad structure of the grammar is fixed in advance and only parameters are induced (Lari and Young, 1990; Carroll and Charniak, 1992) . 1 However, this appeared unpromising and most recent work has returned to using structure search. Note that both approaches are local. Structure search requires ways of deciding locally which merges will produce a coherent, globally good grammar. To the extent that such approaches work, they work because good local heuristics have been engineered (Klein and Manning, 2001a; Clark, 2001) . September 5 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 Start End 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 Start End 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 Start End Span Label Constituent Context 0,5 S NN NNS VBD IN NN -0,2 NP NN NNS -VBD 2,5 VP VBD IN NN NNS -3,5 PP IN NN VBD -0,1 NN NN -NNS 1,2 NNS NNS NN -VBD 2,3 VBD VBD Figure 1 : (a) Example parse tree with (b) its associated bracketing and (c) the yields and contexts for each constituent span in that bracketing. Distituent yields and contexts are not shown, but are modeled.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 177,
"end": 192,
"text": "(Olivier, 1968;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 205,
"text": "Wolff, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 385,
"end": 407,
"text": "(Lari and Young, 1990;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 435,
"text": "Carroll and Charniak, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 787,
"end": 813,
"text": "(Klein and Manning, 2001a;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 814,
"end": 826,
"text": "Clark, 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 829,
"end": 1208,
"text": "September 5 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 Start End 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 Start End 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 Start End Span Label Constituent Context 0,5 S NN NNS VBD IN NN -0,2 NP NN NNS -VBD 2,5 VP VBD IN NN NNS -3,5 PP IN NN VBD -0,1 NN NN -NNS 1,2 NNS NNS NN -VBD 2,3 VBD",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1213,
"end": 1221,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "S NP NN 0 Factory NNS 1 payrolls VP VBD 2 fell PP IN 3 in NN 4",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "NNS -IN 3,4 IN IN VBD -NN 4,5 NN NNS IN - (a) (b) (c)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Parameter search is also local; parameters which are locally optimal may be globally poor. A concrete example is the experiments from (Carroll and Charniak, 1992) . They restricted the space of grammars to those isomorphic to a dependency grammar over the POS symbols in the Penn treebank, and then searched for parameters with the inside-outside algorithm (Baker, 1979) starting with 300 random production weight vectors. Each seed converged to a different locally optimal grammar, none of them nearly as good as the treebank grammar, measured either by parsing performance or data-likelihood.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 162,
"text": "(Carroll and Charniak, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 370,
"text": "(Baker, 1979)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "However, parameter search methods have a potential advantage. By aggregating over only valid, complete parses of each sentence, they naturally incorporate the constraint that constituents cannot cross -the bracketing decisions made by the grammar must be coherent. The Carroll and Charniak experiments had two primary causes for failure. First, random initialization is not always good, or necessary. The parameter space is riddled with local likelihood maxima, and starting with a very specific, but random, grammar should not be expected to work well. We duplicated their experiments, but used a uniform parameter initialization where all productions were equally likely. This allowed the interaction between the grammar and data to break the initial symmetry, and resulted in an induced grammar of higher quality than Carroll and Charniak reported. This grammar, which we refer to as DEP-PCFG will be evaluated in more detail in section 4. The second way in which their experiment was guaranteed to be somewhat unencouraging is that a delexicalized dependency grammar is a very poor model of language, even in a supervised setting. By the F 1 measure used in the experiments in section 4, an induced dependency PCFG scores 48.2, compared to a score of 82.1 for a supervised PCFG read from local trees of the treebank. However, a supervised dependency PCFG scores only 53.5, not much better than the unsupervised version, and worse than a right-branching baseline (of 60.0). As an example of the inherent shortcomings of the dependency grammar, it is structurally unable to distinguish whether the subject or object should be attached to the verb first. Since both parses involve the same set of productions, both will have equal likelihood.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Previous Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "To exploit the benefits of parameter search, we used a novel model which is designed specifically to enable a more felicitous search space. The fundamental assumption is a much weakened version of classic linguistic constituency tests (Radford, 1988) : constituents appear in constituent contexts. A particular linguistic phenomenon that the system exploits is that long constituents often have short, common equivalents, or proforms, which appear in similar contexts and whose constituency is easily discovered (or guaranteed). Our model is designed to transfer the constituency of a sequence directly to its containing context, which is intended to then pressure new sequences that occur in that context into being parsed as constituents in the next round. The model is also designed to exploit the successes of distributional clustering, and can equally well be viewed as doing distributional clustering in the presence of no-overlap constraints.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 235,
"end": 250,
"text": "(Radford, 1988)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Generative Constituent-Context Model",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Unlike a PCFG, our model describes all contiguous subsequences of a sentence (spans), including empty spans, whether they are constituents or nonconstituents (distituents). A span encloses a sequence of terminals, or yield, \u03b1, such as DT JJ NN. A span occurs in a context x, such as -VBZ, where x is the ordered pair of preceding and following ter-minals ( denotes a sentence boundary). A bracketing of a sentence is a boolean matrix B, which indicates which spans are constituents and which are not. Figure 1 shows a parse of a short sentence, the bracketing corresponding to that parse, and the labels, yields, and contexts of its constituent spans. Figure 2 shows several bracketings of the sentence in figure 1. A bracketing B of a sentence is non-crossing if, whenever two spans cross, at most one is a constituent in B. A non-crossing bracketing is tree-equivalent if the size-one terminal spans and the full-sentence span are constituents, and all size-zero spans are distituents. Figure 2 (a) and (b) are tree-equivalent. Tree-equivalent bracketings B correspond to (unlabeled) trees in the obvious way. A bracketing is binary if it corresponds to a binary tree. Figure 2 (b) is binary. We will induce trees by inducing tree-equivalent bracketings.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 501,
"end": 509,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 652,
"end": 660,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 988,
"end": 996,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 1171,
"end": 1179,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constituents and Contexts",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Our generative model over sentences S has two phases. First, we choose a bracketing B according to some distribution P(B) and then generate the sentence given that bracketing:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constituents and Contexts",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "P(S, B) = P(B)P(S|B)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constituents and Contexts",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Given B, we fill in each span independently. The context and yield of each span are independent of each other, and generated conditionally on the constituency B i j of that span.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Constituents and Contexts",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "= i, j \u2208spans(S) P(\u03b1 i j , x i j |B i j ) = i, j P(\u03b1 i j |B i j )P(x i j |B i j )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P(S|B)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The distribution P(\u03b1 i j |B i j ) is a pair of multinomial distributions over the set of all possible yields: one for constituents (B i j = c) and one for distituents (B i j = d). Similarly for P(x i j |B i j ) and contexts. The marginal probability assigned to the sentence S is given by summing over all possible bracketings of S: P(S) = B P(B)P(S|B). 2 To induce structure, we run EM over this model, treating the sentences S as observed and the bracketings B as unobserved. The parameters of the model are the constituency-conditional yield and context distributions P(\u03b1|b) and P(x|b). If P(B) is uniform over all (possibly crossing) bracketings, then this procedure will be equivalent to softclustering with two equal-prior classes.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 354,
"end": 355,
"text": "2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P(S|B)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "There is reason to believe that such soft clusterings alone will not produce valuable distinctions, even with a significantly larger number of classes. The distituents must necessarily outnumber the constituents, and so such distributional clustering will result in mostly distituent classes. Clark (2001) finds exactly this effect, and must resort to a filtering heuristic to separate constituent and distituent clusters. To underscore the difference between the bracketing and labeling tasks, consider figure 3. In both plots, each point is a frequent tag sequence, assigned to the (normalized) vector of its context frequencies. Each plot has been projected onto the first two principal components of its respective data set. The left plot shows the most frequent sequences of three constituent types. Even in just two dimensions, the clusters seem coherent, and it is easy to believe that they would be found by a clustering algorithm in the full space. On the right, sequences have been labeled according to whether their occurrences are constituents more or less of the time than a cutoff (of 0.2). The distinction between constituent and distituent seems much less easily discernible.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 293,
"end": 305,
"text": "Clark (2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P(S|B)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We can turn what at first seems to be distributional clustering into tree induction by confining P(B) to put mass only on tree-equivalent bracketings. In particular, consider P bin (B) which is uniform over binary bracketings and zero elsewhere. If we take this bracketing distribution, then when we sum over data completions, we will only involve bracketings which correspond to valid binary trees. This restriction is the basis for our algorithm.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "P(S|B)",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Usually a Constituent Rarely a Constituent (a) Constituent Types (b) Constituents vs. Distituents Figure 3 : The most frequent yields of (a) three constituent types and (b) constituents and distituents, as context vectors, projected onto their first two principal components. Clustering is effective at labeling, but not detecting constituents.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 106,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "NP VP PP",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We now essentially have our induction algorithm. We take P(B) to be P bin (B), so that all binary trees are equally likely. We then apply the EM algorithm: E-Step: Find the conditional completion likelihoods P(B|S, ) according to the current .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Induction Algorithm",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Step: Fix P(B|S, ) and find the which maximizes B P(B|S, ) log P(S, B| ).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "M-",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The completions (bracketings) cannot be efficiently enumerated, and so a cubic dynamic program similar to the inside-outside algorithm is used to calculate the expected counts of each yield and context, both as constituents and distituents. Relative frequency estimates (which are the ML estimates for this model) are used to set .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "M-",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To begin the process, we did not begin at the Estep with an initial guess at . Rather, we began at the M-step, using an initial distribution over completions. The initial distribution was not the uniform distribution over binary trees P bin (B). That was undesirable as an initial point because, combinatorily, almost all trees are relatively balanced. On the other hand, in language, we want to allow unbalanced structures to have a reasonable chance to be discovered. Therefore, consider the following uniformsplitting process of generating binary trees over k terminals: choose a split point at random, then recursively build trees by this process on each side of the split. This process gives a distribution P split which puts relatively more weight on unbalanced trees, but only in a very general, non language-specific way. This distribution was not used in the model itself, however. It seemed to bias too strongly against balanced structures, and led to entirely linear-branching structures.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "M-",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The smoothing used was straightforward. For each yield \u03b1 or context x, we added 10 counts of that item as a constituent and 50 as a distituent. This reflected the relative skew of random spans being more likely to be distituents. This contrasts with our previous work, which was sensitive to smoothing method, and required a massive amount of it.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "M-",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We performed most experiments on the 7422 sentences in the Penn treebank Wall Street Journal section which contained no more than 10 words after the removal of punctuation and null elements (WSJ-10). Evaluation was done by measuring unlabeled precision, recall, and their harmonic mean F 1 against the treebank parses. Constituents which could not be gotten wrong (single words and entire sentences) were discarded. 3 The basic experiments, as described above, do not label constituents. An advantage to having only a single constituent class is that it encourages constituents of one type to be found even when they occur in a context which canonically holds another type. For example, NPs and PPs both occur between a verb and the end of the sentence, and they can transfer constituency to each other through that context. Figure 4 shows the F 1 score for various methods of parsing. RANDOM chooses a tree uniformly ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 416,
"end": 417,
"text": "3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 825,
"end": 833,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "\" ! $ # % Percent & $ & ( ' 0 ) 1 2 4 3 55 & $ & ( ' 0 6 7 & $ & ( ' 0 8 91 2 4 @A 4 @B C D $ E F 8 H G I 8 H & P 6 I Q R 6 7",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Figure 5: Accuracy scores for CCM-induced structures by span size. The drop in precision for span length 2 is largely due to analysis inside NPs which is omitted by the treebank. Also shown is F 1 for the induced PCFG. The PCFG shows higher accuracy on small spans, while the CCM is more even.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "at random from the set of binary trees. 4 This is the unsupervised baseline. DEP-PCFG is the result of duplicating the experiments of Carroll and Charniak (1992) , using EM to train a dependencystructured PCFG. LBRANCH and RBRANCH choose the left-and right-branching structures, respectively. RBRANCH is a frequently used baseline for supervised parsing, but it should be stressed that it encodes a significant fact about English structure, and an induction system need not beat it to claim a degree of success. CCM is our system, as described above. SUP-PCFG is a supervised PCFG parser trained on a 90-10 split of this data, using the treebank grammar, with the Viterbi parse rightbinarized. 5 UBOUND is the upper bound of how well a binary system can do against the treebank sentences, which are generally flatter than binary, limiting the maximum precision. CCM is doing quite well at 71.1%, substantially better than right-branching structure. One common issue with grammar induction systems is a tendency to chunk in a bottom-up fashion. Especially since the CCM does not model recursive structure explicitly, one might be concerned that the high overall accuracy is due to a high accuracy on short-span constituents. Figure 5 shows that this is not true. Recall drops slightly for mid-size constituents, but longer constituents are as reliably proposed as short ones. Another effect illustrated in this graph is that, for span 2, constituents have low precision for their recall. This contrast is primarily due to the single largest difference between the system's induced structures and those in the treebank: the treebank does not parse into NPs such as DT JJ NN, while our system does, and generally does so correctly, identifying N units like JJ NN. This overproposal drops span-2 precision. In contrast, figure 5 also shows the F 1 for DEP-PCFG, which does exhibit a drop in F 1 over larger spans.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 161,
"text": "Carroll and Charniak (1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1224,
"end": 1232,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The top row of figure 8 shows the recall of nontrivial brackets, split according the brackets' labels in the treebank. Unsurprisingly, NP recall is highest, but other categories are also high. Because we ignore trivial constituents, the comparatively low S represents only embedded sentences, which are somewhat harder even for supervised systems.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "To facilitate comparison to other recent work, figure 6 shows the accuracy of our system when trained on the same WSJ data, but tested on the ATIS corpus, and evaluated according to the EVALB program. 6 The F 1 numbers are lower for this corpus and evaluation method. 7 Still, CCM beats not only RBRANCH (by 8.3%), but also the previous conditional COND-CCM and the next closest unsupervised system (which does not beat RBRANCH in F 1 ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 201,
"end": 202,
"text": "6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "6 EMILE and ABL are lexical systems described in (van Zaanen, 2000; Adriaans and Haas, 1999) . CDC-40, from (Clark, 2001) , reflects training on much more data (12M words).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 67,
"text": "(van Zaanen, 2000;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 92,
"text": "Adriaans and Haas, 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 121,
"text": "(Clark, 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "7 The primary cause of the lower F 1 is that the ATIS corpus is replete with span-one NPs; adding an extra bracket around all single words raises our EVALB recall to 71.9; removing all unaries from the ATIS gold standard gives an F 1 of 63.3%. Figure 7 : Constituents most frequently over-and underproposed by our system.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 244,
"end": 252,
"text": "Figure 7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Parsing figures can only be a component of evaluating an unsupervised induction system. Low scores may indicate systematic alternate analyses rather than true confusion, and the Penn treebank is a sometimes arbitrary or even inconsistent gold standard. To give a better sense of the kinds of errors the system is or is not making, we can look at which sequences are most often over-proposed, or most often under-proposed, compared to the treebank parses. Figure 7 shows the 10 most frequently over-and under-proposed sequences. The system's main error trends can be seen directly from these two lists. It forms MD VB verb groups systematically, and it attaches the possessive particle to the right, like a determiner, rather than to the left. 8 It provides binarybranching analyses within NPs, normally resulting in correct extra N constituents, like JJ NN, which are not bracketed in the treebank. More seriously, it tends to attach post-verbal prepositions to the verb and gets confused by long sequences of nouns. A significant improvement over earlier systems is the absence of subject-verb groups, which disappeared when we switched to P split (B) for initial completions; the more balanced subject-verb analysis had a substantial combinatorial advantage with P bin (B).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 455,
"end": 463,
"text": "Figure 7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Error Analysis",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "We also ran the system with multiple constituent classes, using a slightly more complex generative model in which the bracketing generates a labeling which then generates the constituents and contexts. The set of labels for constituent spans and distituent spans are forced to be disjoint.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Multiple Constituent Classes",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Intuitively, it seems that more classes should help, by allowing the system to distinguish different types of constituents and constituent contexts. However, it seemed to slightly hurt parsing accuracy overall. Figure 8 compares the performance for 2 versus 12 classes; in both cases, only one of the classes was allocated for distituents. Overall F 1 dropped very slightly with 12 classes, but the category recall numbers indicate that the errors shifted around substantially. PP accuracy is lower, which is not surprising considering that PPs tend to appear rather optionally and in contexts in which other, easier categories also frequently appear. On the other hand, embedded sentence recall is substantially higher, possibly because of more effective use of the top-level sentences which occur in the signature context -. The classes found, as might be expected, range from clearly identifiable to nonsense. Note that simply directly clustering all sequences into 12 categories produced almost entirely the latter, with clusters representing various distituent types. Figure 9 shows several of the 12 classes. Class 0 is the model's distituent class. Its most frequent members are a mix of obvious distituents (IN DT, DT JJ, IN DT, NN VBZ) and seemingly good sequences like NNP NNP. However, there are many sequences of 3 or more NNP tags in a row, and not all adjacent pairs can possibly be constituents at the same time. Class 1 is mainly common NP sequences, class 2 is proper NPs, class 3 is NPs which involve numbers, and class 6 is N sequences, which tend to be linguistically right but unmarked in the treebank. Class 4 is a mix of seemingly good NPs, often from positions like VBZ-NN where they were not constituents, and other sequences that share such contexts with otherwise good NP sequences. This is a danger of not jointly modeling yield and context, and of not modeling any kind of recursive structure. Class 5 is mainly composed of verb phrases and verb groups. No class corresponded neatly to PPs: perhaps because they have no signature contexts. The 2-class model is effective at identifying them only because they share contexts with a range of other constituent types (such as NPs and VPs).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 211,
"end": 219,
"text": "Figure 8",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1073,
"end": 1081,
"text": "Figure 9",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Multiple Constituent Classes",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "A reasonable criticism of the experiments presented so far, and some other earlier work, is that we assume treebank part-of-speech tags as input. This criticism could be two-fold. First, state-of-the-art supervised PCFGs do not perform nearly so well with their input delexicalized. We may be reducing data sparsity and making it easier to see a broad picture of the grammar, but we are also limiting how well we can possibly do. It is certainly worth exploring methods which supplement or replace tagged input with lexical input. However, we address here the more serious criticism: that our results stem from clues latent in the treebank tagging information which are conceptually posterior to knowledge of structure. For instance, some treebank tag distinctions, such as particle (RP) vs. preposition (IN) or predeterminer (PDT) vs. determiner (DT) or adjective (JJ), could be said to import into the tagset distinctions that can only be made syntactically.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 804,
"end": 808,
"text": "(IN)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Induced Parts-of-Speech",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "To show results from a complete grammar induction system, we also did experiments starting with a clustering of the words in the treebank. We used basically the baseline method of word type clustering in (Sch\u00fctze, 1995) (which is close to the methods of (Finch, 1993) ). For (all-lowercased) word types in the Penn treebank, a 1000 element vector was made by counting how often each co-occurred with each of the 500 most common words immediately to the left or right in Treebank text and additional 1994-96 WSJ newswire. These vectors were length-normalized, and then rank-reduced by an SVD, keeping the 50 largest singular vectors. The resulting vectors were clustered into 200 word classes by a weighted k-means algorithm, and then grammar induction operated over these classes. We do not believe that the quality of our tags matches that of the better methods of Sch\u00fctze (1995) , much less the recent results of Clark (2000) . Nevertheless, using these tags as input still gave induced structure substantially above right-branching. the performance with induced tags compared to correct tags. Overall F 1 has dropped, but, interestingly, VP and S recall are higher. This seems to be due to a marked difference between the induced tags and the treebank tags: nouns are scattered among a disproportionally large number of induced tags, increasing the number of common NP sequences, but decreasing the frequency of each.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 204,
"end": 219,
"text": "(Sch\u00fctze, 1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 267,
"text": "(Finch, 1993)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 866,
"end": 880,
"text": "Sch\u00fctze (1995)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 915,
"end": 927,
"text": "Clark (2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Induced Parts-of-Speech",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Another issue with previous systems is their sensitivity to initial choices. The conditional model of Klein and Manning (2001b) had the drawback that the variance of final F 1 , and qualitative grammars found, was fairly high, depending on small differences in first-round random parses. The model presented here does not suffer from this: while it is clearly sensitive to the quality of the input tagging, it is robust with respect to smoothing parameters and data splits. Varying the smoothing counts a factor of ten in either direction did not change the overall F 1 by more than 1%. Training on random subsets of the training data brought lower performance, but constantly lower over equal-size splits. Moreover, there are no first-round random decisions to be sensitive to; the soft EM procedure is deterministic. Figure 10 shows the overall F 1 score and the data likelihood according to our model during convergence. 9 Surprisingly, both are non-decreasing as the system iterates, indicating that data likelihood in this model corresponds well with parse accuracy. 10 Figure 11 shows recall for various categories by iteration. NP recall exhibits the more typical pattern of a sharp rise followed by a slow fall, but the other categories, after some initial drops, all increase until convergence. These graphs stop at 40 iterations. The system actually converged in both likelihood and F 1 by iteration 38, to within a tolerance of 10 \u221210 . The time to convergence varied according to smoothing amount, number of classes, and tags used, but the system almost always converged within 80 iterations, usually within 40.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 127,
"text": "Klein and Manning (2001b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 819,
"end": 828,
"text": "Figure 10",
"ref_id": "FIGREF4"
},
{
"start": 1075,
"end": 1084,
"text": "Figure 11",
"ref_id": "FIGREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Convergence and Stability",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "We have presented a simple generative model for the unsupervised distributional induction of hierarchical linguistic structure. The system achieves the best published unsupervised parsing scores on the WSJ-10 and ATIS data sets. The induction algorithm combines the benefits of EM-based parameter search and distributional clustering methods. We have shown that this method acquires a substantial amount of correct structure, to the point that the most frequent discrepancies between the induced trees and the treebank gold standard are systematic alternate analyses, many of which are linguistically plausible. We have shown that the system is not reliant on supervised POS tag input, and demonstrated increased accuracy, speed, simplicity, and stability compared to previous systems.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "On this approach, the question of which rules are included or excluded becomes the question of which parameters are zero.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Viewed as a model generating sentences, this model is deficient, placing mass on yield and context choices which will not tile into a valid sentence, either because specifications for positions conflict or because yields of incorrect lengths are chosen. However, we can renormalize by dividing by the mass placed on proper sentences and zeroing the probability of improper bracketings. The rest of the paper, and results, would be unchanged except for notation to track the renormalization constant.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Since reproducible evaluation is important, a few more notes: this is different from the original (unlabeled) bracketing measures proposed in the PARSEVAL standard, which did not count single words as constituents, but did give points for putting a bracket over the entire sentence. Secondly, bracket labels and multiplicity are just ignored. Below, we also present results using the EVALB program for comparability, but we note that while one can get results from it that ignore bracket labels, it never ignores bracket multiplicity. Both these alternatives seem less satisfactory to us as measures for evaluating unsupervised constituency decisions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This is different from making random parsing decisions, which gave a higher score of 35%.5 Without post-binarization, the F 1 score was 88.9.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Linguists have at times argued for both analyses:Halliday (1994) andAbney (1987), respectively.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": " 9 The data likelihood is not shown exactly, but rather we show the linear transformation of it calculated by the system. 10 Pereira and Schabes (1992) find otherwise for PCFGs.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "acknowledgement",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stephen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Abney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1987,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stephen P. Abney. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sen- tential Aspect. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Grammar induction as substructural inductive logic programming",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Pieter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Adriaans",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Erik",
"middle": [],
"last": "Haas",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Learning Language in Logic",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "117--127",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Pieter Adriaans and Erik Haas. 1999. Grammar induction as substructural inductive logic programming. In James Cussens, editor, Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Learn- ing Language in Logic, pages 117-127, Bled, Slovenia.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Trainable grammars for speech recognition",
"authors": [
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Baker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1979,
"venue": "Speech Communication Papers for the 97th Meeting of the",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "547--550",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "James K. Baker. 1979. Trainable grammars for speech recogni- tion. In D. H. Klatt and J. J. Wolf, editors, Speech Communi- cation Papers for the 97th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, pages 547-550.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Automatic grammar induction and parsing free text: A transformation-based approach",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Eric",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brill",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "ACL 31",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "259--265",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eric Brill. 1993. Automatic grammar induction and parsing free text: A transformation-based approach. In ACL 31, pages 259-265.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Two experiments on learning probabilistic dependency grammars from corpora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Glenn",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carroll",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eugene",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charniak",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": ";",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Abney",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grishman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weischedel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "editors, Working Notes of the Workshop Statistically-Based NLP Techniques",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--13",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Glenn Carroll and Eugene Charniak. 1992. Two experiments on learning probabilistic dependency grammars from corpora. In C. Weir, S. Abney, R. Grishman, and R. Weischedel, edi- tors, Working Notes of the Workshop Statistically-Based NLP Techniques, pages 1-13. AAAI Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Bayesian grammar induction for language modeling",
"authors": [
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stanley",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "ACL 33",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "228--235",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stanley F. Chen. 1995. Bayesian grammar induction for lan- guage modeling. In ACL 33, pages 228-235.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Inducing syntactic categories by context distribution clustering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alexander",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clark",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "The Fourth Conference on Natural Language Learning",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alexander Clark. 2000. Inducing syntactic categories by con- text distribution clustering. In The Fourth Conference on Natural Language Learning.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Unsupervised induction of stochastic context-free grammars using distributional clustering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alexander",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clark",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "The Fifth Conference on Natural Language Learning",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alexander Clark. 2001. Unsupervised induction of stochastic context-free grammars using distributional clustering. In The Fifth Conference on Natural Language Learning.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Finding Structure in Language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Steven",
"middle": [
"Paul"
],
"last": "Finch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Steven Paul Finch. 1993. Finding Structure in Language. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "An introduction to functional grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"A K"
],
"last": "Halliday",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. A. K. Halliday. 1994. An introduction to functional gram- mar. Edward Arnold, London, 2nd edition.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Distributional phrase structure induction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Natural Language Learning",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "113--120",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dan Klein and Christopher D. Manning. 2001a. Distribu- tional phrase structure induction. In Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2001), pages 113-120.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Natural language grammar induction using a constituent-context model",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dan Klein and Christopher D. Manning. 2001b. Natural lan- guage grammar induction using a constituent-context model. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol- ume 14. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "The estimation of stochastic context-free grammars using the inside-outside algorithm",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lari",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Young",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1990,
"venue": "Computer Speech and Language",
"volume": "4",
"issue": "",
"pages": "35--56",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "K. Lari and S. J. Young. 1990. The estimation of stochastic context-free grammars using the inside-outside algorithm. Computer Speech and Language, 4:35-56.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Stochastic Grammars and Language Acquisition Mechanisms",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Donald Cort",
"middle": [],
"last": "Olivier",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1968,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Donald Cort Olivier. 1968. Stochastic Grammars and Language Acquisition Mechanisms. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Inside-outside reestimation from partially bracketed corpora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yves",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schabes",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "ACL 30",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "128--135",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fernando Pereira and Yves Schabes. 1992. Inside-outside rees- timation from partially bracketed corpora. In ACL 30, pages 128-135.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Transformational Grammar. Cambridge University Press",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [],
"last": "Radford",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Andrew Radford. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Distributional part-of-speech tagging",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hinrich",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sch\u00fctze",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "EACL 7",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "141--148",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hinrich Sch\u00fctze. 1995. Distributional part-of-speech tagging. In EACL 7, pages 141-148.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Inducing probabilistic grammars by Bayesian model merging",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Andreas",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stolcke",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Omohundro",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Grammatical Inference and Applications: Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Andreas Stolcke and Stephen M. Omohundro. 1994. Induc- ing probabilistic grammars by Bayesian model merging. In Grammatical Inference and Applications: Proceedings of the Second International Colloquium on Grammatical Infer- ence. Springer Verlag.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "ABL: Alignment-based learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Zaanen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "COLING 18",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "961--967",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. van Zaanen. 2000. ABL: Alignment-based learning. In COLING 18, pages 961-967.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Learning syntax and meanings through optimization and distributional analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Wolff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1988,
"venue": "Categories and processes in language acquisition",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "179--215",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. G. Wolff. 1988. Learning syntax and meanings through optimization and distributional analysis. In Y. Levy, I. M. Schlesinger, and M. D. S. Braine, editors, Categories and processes in language acquisition, pages 179-215. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Three bracketings of the sentence in figure 1: constituent spans in black. (b) corresponds to the binary parse infigure 1; (a)does not contain the 2,5 VP bracket, while (c) contains a 0,3 bracket crossing that VP bracket.",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Figure 4: F 1 for various models on WSJ-10.",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Most frequent members of several classes found.",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "F 1 is non-decreasing until convergence.",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"FIGREF5": {
"type_str": "figure",
"text": "Recall by category during convergence.",
"uris": null,
"num": null
},
"TABREF2": {
"html": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Classes Tags</td><td colspan=\"2\">Precision Recall</td><td>F 1</td><td colspan=\"4\">NP Recall PP Recall VP Recall S Recall</td></tr><tr><td/><td>2 Treebank</td><td>63.8</td><td>80.2</td><td>71.1</td><td>83.4</td><td>78.5</td><td>78.6</td><td>40.7</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">12 Treebank</td><td>63.6</td><td>80.0</td><td>70.9</td><td>82.2</td><td>59.1</td><td>82.8</td><td>57.0</td></tr><tr><td/><td>2 Induced</td><td>56.8</td><td>71.1</td><td>63.2</td><td>52.8</td><td>56.2</td><td>90.0</td><td>60.5</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Class 0</td><td>Class 1</td><td>Class 2</td><td/><td>Class 3</td><td>Class 4</td><td>Class 5</td><td>Class 6</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">NNP NNP NN VBD</td><td>DT NN</td><td colspan=\"2\">NNP NNP</td><td>CD CD</td><td>VBN IN</td><td>MD VB</td><td>JJ NN</td></tr><tr><td>NN IN</td><td>NN NN</td><td>JJ NNS</td><td colspan=\"2\">NNP NNP NNP</td><td>CD NN</td><td>JJ IN</td><td colspan=\"2\">MD RB VB JJ NNS</td></tr><tr><td>IN DT</td><td colspan=\"2\">NNS VBP DT NNS</td><td colspan=\"2\">CC NNP</td><td>IN CD CD</td><td>DT NN</td><td>VBN IN</td><td>JJ JJ NN</td></tr><tr><td>DT JJ</td><td colspan=\"2\">NNS VBD DT JJ NN</td><td colspan=\"2\">POS NN</td><td>CD NNS</td><td>JJ CC</td><td colspan=\"2\">WDT VBZ CD NNS</td></tr><tr><td>NN VBZ</td><td>TO VB</td><td colspan=\"5\">NN NNS NNP NNP NNP NNP CD CD IN CD CD DT JJ NN</td><td>JJ IN</td><td>NNP NN</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Figure 8: Scores for the 2-and 12-class model with Treebank tags, and the 2-class model with induced tags."
}
}
}
} |