File size: 129,589 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 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2480 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2512 2513 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 2521 2522 2523 2524 2525 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564 2565 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 2671 2672 2673 2674 2675 2676 2677 2678 2679 2680 2681 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 2687 2688 2689 2690 2691 2692 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 2698 2699 2700 2701 2702 2703 2704 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2711 2712 2713 2714 2715 2716 2717 2718 2719 2720 2721 2722 2723 2724 | {
"paper_id": "P13-1045",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:36:16.827414Z"
},
"title": "Parsing with Compositional Vector Grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Socher",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Stanford University",
"location": {
"postCode": "94305",
"settlement": "Stanford",
"region": "CA",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "richard@socher.org"
},
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bauer",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Stanford University",
"location": {
"postCode": "94305",
"settlement": "Stanford",
"region": "CA",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Stanford University",
"location": {
"postCode": "94305",
"settlement": "Stanford",
"region": "CA",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": "manning@stanford.edu"
},
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Ng",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Stanford University",
"location": {
"postCode": "94305",
"settlement": "Stanford",
"region": "CA",
"country": "USA"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Natural language parsing has typically been done with small sets of discrete categories such as NP and VP, but this representation does not capture the full syntactic nor semantic richness of linguistic phrases, and attempts to improve on this by lexicalizing phrases or splitting categories only partly address the problem at the cost of huge feature spaces and sparseness. Instead, we introduce a Compositional Vector Grammar (CVG), which combines PCFGs with a syntactically untied recursive neural network that learns syntactico-semantic, compositional vector representations. The CVG improves the PCFG of the Stanford Parser by 3.8% to obtain an F1 score of 90.4%. It is fast to train and implemented approximately as an efficient reranker it is about 20% faster than the current Stanford factored parser. The CVG learns a soft notion of head words and improves performance on the types of ambiguities that require semantic information such as PP attachments.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P13-1045",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Natural language parsing has typically been done with small sets of discrete categories such as NP and VP, but this representation does not capture the full syntactic nor semantic richness of linguistic phrases, and attempts to improve on this by lexicalizing phrases or splitting categories only partly address the problem at the cost of huge feature spaces and sparseness. Instead, we introduce a Compositional Vector Grammar (CVG), which combines PCFGs with a syntactically untied recursive neural network that learns syntactico-semantic, compositional vector representations. The CVG improves the PCFG of the Stanford Parser by 3.8% to obtain an F1 score of 90.4%. It is fast to train and implemented approximately as an efficient reranker it is about 20% faster than the current Stanford factored parser. The CVG learns a soft notion of head words and improves performance on the types of ambiguities that require semantic information such as PP attachments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Syntactic parsing is a central task in natural language processing because of its importance in mediating between linguistic expression and meaning. For example, much work has shown the usefulness of syntactic representations for subsequent tasks such as relation extraction, semantic role labeling (Gildea and Palmer, 2002) and paraphrase detection (Callison-Burch, 2008) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 299,
"end": 324,
"text": "(Gildea and Palmer, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 372,
"text": "(Callison-Burch, 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Syntactic descriptions standardly use coarse discrete categories such as NP for noun phrases or PP for prepositional phrases. However, recent work has shown that parsing results can be greatly improved by defining more fine-grained syntactic Discrete Syntactic -Continuous Semantic Representations in the Compositional Vector Grammar Figure 1 : Example of a CVG tree with (category,vector) representations at each node. The vectors for nonterminals are computed via a new type of recursive neural network which is conditioned on syntactic categories from a PCFG. categories, which better capture phrases with similar behavior, whether through manual feature engineering (Klein and Manning, 2003a) or automatic learning (Petrov et al., 2006) . However, subdividing a category like NP into 30 or 60 subcategories can only provide a very limited representation of phrase meaning and semantic similarity. Two strands of work therefore attempt to go further. First, recent work in discriminative parsing has shown gains from careful engineering of features (Taskar et al., 2004; Finkel et al., 2008) . Features in such parsers can be seen as defining effective dimensions of similarity between categories. Second, lexicalized parsers (Collins, 2003; Charniak, 2000) associate each category with a lexical item. This gives a fine-grained notion of semantic similarity, which is useful for tackling problems like ambiguous attachment decisions. However, this approach necessitates complex shrinkage estimation schemes to deal with the sparsity of observations of the lexicalized categories.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 670,
"end": 696,
"text": "(Klein and Manning, 2003a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 719,
"end": 740,
"text": "(Petrov et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 1052,
"end": 1073,
"text": "(Taskar et al., 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 1074,
"end": 1094,
"text": "Finkel et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 1229,
"end": 1244,
"text": "(Collins, 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 1245,
"end": 1260,
"text": "Charniak, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 334,
"end": 342,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In many natural language systems, single words and n-grams are usefully described by their distributional similarities (Brown et al., 1992) , among many others. But, even with large corpora, many n-grams will never be seen during training, especially when n is large. In these cases, one cannot simply use distributional similarities to represent unseen phrases. In this work, we present a new solution to learn features and phrase representations even for very long, unseen n-grams.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 139,
"text": "(Brown et al., 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We introduce a Compositional Vector Grammar Parser (CVG) for structure prediction. Like the above work on parsing, the model addresses the problem of representing phrases and categories. Unlike them, it jointly learns how to parse and how to represent phrases as both discrete categories and continuous vectors as illustrated in Fig. 1 . CVGs combine the advantages of standard probabilistic context free grammars (PCFG) with those of recursive neural networks (RNNs). The former can capture the discrete categorization of phrases into NP or PP while the latter can capture fine-grained syntactic and compositional-semantic information on phrases and words. This information can help in cases where syntactic ambiguity can only be resolved with semantic information, such as in the PP attachment of the two sentences: They ate udon with forks. vs. They ate udon with chicken.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 329,
"end": 335,
"text": "Fig. 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Previous RNN-based parsers used the same (tied) weights at all nodes to compute the vector representing a constituent (Socher et al., 2011b) . This requires the composition function to be extremely powerful, since it has to combine phrases with different syntactic head words, and it is hard to optimize since the parameters form a very deep neural network. We generalize the fully tied RNN to one with syntactically untied weights. The weights at each node are conditionally dependent on the categories of the child constituents. This allows different composition functions when combining different types of phrases and is shown to result in a large improvement in parsing accuracy.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 140,
"text": "(Socher et al., 2011b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Our compositional distributed representation allows a CVG parser to make accurate parsing decisions and capture similarities between phrases and sentences. Any PCFG-based parser can be improved with an RNN. We use a simplified version of the Stanford Parser (Klein and Manning, 2003a) as the base PCFG and improve its accuracy from 86.56 to 90.44% labeled F1 on all sentences of the WSJ section 23. The code of our parser is available at nlp.stanford.edu.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 258,
"end": 284,
"text": "(Klein and Manning, 2003a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The CVG is inspired by two lines of research: Enriching PCFG parsers through more diverse sets of discrete states and recursive deep learning models that jointly learn classifiers and continuous feature representations for variable-sized inputs.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "As mentioned in the introduction, there are several approaches to improving discrete representations for parsing. Klein and Manning (2003a) use manual feature engineering, while Petrov et al. (2006) use a learning algorithm that splits and merges the syntactic categories in order to maximize likelihood on the treebank. Their approach splits categories into several dozen subcategories. Another approach is lexicalized parsers (Collins, 2003; Charniak, 2000) that describe each category with a lexical item, usually the head word. More recently, combine several such annotation schemes in a factored parser. We extend the above ideas from discrete representations to richer continuous ones. The CVG can be seen as factoring discrete and continuous parsing in one model. Another different approach to the above generative models is to learn discriminative parsers using many well designed features (Taskar et al., 2004; Finkel et al., 2008) . We also borrow ideas from this line of research in that our parser combines the generative PCFG model with discriminatively learned RNNs.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 139,
"text": "Klein and Manning (2003a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 198,
"text": "Petrov et al. (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 428,
"end": 443,
"text": "(Collins, 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 444,
"end": 459,
"text": "Charniak, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 898,
"end": 919,
"text": "(Taskar et al., 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 920,
"end": 940,
"text": "Finkel et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Improving Discrete Syntactic Representations",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Early attempts at using neural networks to describe phrases include Elman (1991) , who used recurrent neural networks to create representations of sentences from a simple toy grammar and to analyze the linguistic expressiveness of the resulting representations. Words were represented as one-on vectors, which was feasible since the grammar only included a handful of words. Collobert and Weston (2008) showed that neural networks can perform well on sequence labeling language processing tasks while also learning appropriate features. However, their model is lacking in that it cannot represent the recursive structure inherent in natural language. They partially circumvent this problem by using either independent window-based classifiers or a convolutional layer. RNN-specific training was introduced by Goller and K\u00fcchler (1996) to learn distributed representations of given, structured objects such as logical terms. In contrast, our model both predicts the structure and its representation. Henderson (2003) was the first to show that neural networks can be successfully used for large scale parsing. He introduced a left-corner parser to estimate the probabilities of parsing decisions conditioned on the parsing history. The input to Henderson's model consists of pairs of frequent words and their part-of-speech (POS) tags. Both the original parsing system and its probabilistic interpretation (Titov and Henderson, 2007) learn features that represent the parsing history and do not provide a principled linguistic representation like our phrase representations. Other related work includes (Henderson, 2004) , who discriminatively trains a parser based on synchrony networks and (Titov and Henderson, 2006) , who use an SVM to adapt a generative parser to different domains. Costa et al. (2003) apply recursive neural networks to re-rank possible phrase attachments in an incremental parser. Their work is the first to show that RNNs can capture enough information to make correct parsing decisions, but they only test on a subset of 2000 sentences. Menchetti et al. (2005) use RNNs to re-rank different parses. For their results on full sentence parsing, they rerank candidate trees created by the Collins parser (Collins, 2003) . Similar to their work, we use the idea of letting discrete categories reduce the search space during inference. We compare to fully tied RNNs in which the same weights are used at every node. Our syntactically untied RNNs outperform them by a significant margin. The idea of untying has also been successfully used in deep learning applied to vision (Le et al., 2010) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 80,
"text": "Elman (1991)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 402,
"text": "Collobert and Weston (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 809,
"end": 834,
"text": "Goller and K\u00fcchler (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 999,
"end": 1015,
"text": "Henderson (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
},
{
"start": 1405,
"end": 1432,
"text": "(Titov and Henderson, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF38"
},
{
"start": 1602,
"end": 1619,
"text": "(Henderson, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 1691,
"end": 1718,
"text": "(Titov and Henderson, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
},
{
"start": 1787,
"end": 1806,
"text": "Costa et al. (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 2062,
"end": 2085,
"text": "Menchetti et al. (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 2226,
"end": 2241,
"text": "(Collins, 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 2594,
"end": 2611,
"text": "(Le et al., 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Deep Learning and Recursive Deep Learning",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This paper uses several ideas of (Socher et al., 2011b) . The main differences are (i) the dual representation of nodes as discrete categories and vectors, (ii) the combination with a PCFG, and (iii) the syntactic untying of weights based on child categories. We directly compare models with fully tied and untied weights. Another work that represents phrases with a dual discrete-continuous representation is (Kartsaklis et al., 2012) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 55,
"text": "(Socher et al., 2011b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
},
{
"start": 410,
"end": 435,
"text": "(Kartsaklis et al., 2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Deep Learning and Recursive Deep Learning",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This section introduces Compositional Vector Grammars (CVGs), a model to jointly find syntactic structure and capture compositional semantic information.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Vector Grammars",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "CVGs build on two observations. Firstly, that a lot of the structure and regularity in languages can be captured by well-designed syntactic patterns.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Vector Grammars",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Hence, the CVG builds on top of a standard PCFG parser. However, many parsing decisions show fine-grained semantic factors at work. Therefore we combine syntactic and semantic information by giving the parser access to rich syntacticosemantic information in the form of distributional word vectors and compute compositional semantic vector representations for longer phrases (Costa et al., 2003; Menchetti et al., 2005; Socher et al., 2011b ). The CVG model merges ideas from both generative models that assume discrete syntactic categories and discriminative models that are trained using continuous vectors.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 375,
"end": 395,
"text": "(Costa et al., 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 419,
"text": "Menchetti et al., 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 440,
"text": "Socher et al., 2011b",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Vector Grammars",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "We will first briefly introduce single word vector representations and then describe the CVG objective function, tree scoring and inference.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Compositional Vector Grammars",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "In most systems that use a vector representation for words, such vectors are based on cooccurrence statistics of each word and its context (Turney and Pantel, 2010) . Another line of research to learn distributional word vectors is based on neural language models (Bengio et al., 2003) which jointly learn an embedding of words into an n-dimensional feature space and use these embeddings to predict how suitable a word is in its context. These vector representations capture interesting linear relationships (up to some accuracy), such as king\u2212man+woman \u2248 queen (Mikolov et al., 2013) . Collobert and Weston (2008) introduced a new model to compute such an embedding. The idea is to construct a neural network that outputs high scores for windows that occur in a large unlabeled corpus and low scores for windows where one word is replaced by a random word. When such a network is optimized via gradient ascent the derivatives backpropagate into the word embedding matrix X. In order to predict correct scores the vectors in the matrix capture co-occurrence statistics.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 164,
"text": "(Turney and Pantel, 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF40"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 285,
"text": "(Bengio et al., 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 563,
"end": 585,
"text": "(Mikolov et al., 2013)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 588,
"end": 615,
"text": "Collobert and Weston (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word Vector Representations",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "For further details and evaluations of these embeddings, see (Turian et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2012) . The resulting X matrix is used as follows. Assume we are given a sentence as an ordered list of m words. Each word w has an index [w] = i into the columns of the embedding matrix. This index is used to retrieve the word's vector representation a w using a simple multiplication with a binary vector e, which is zero everywhere, except at the ith index. So a w = Le i \u2208 R n . Henceforth, after mapping each word to its vector, we represent a sentence S as an ordered list of (word,vector) pairs:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 82,
"text": "(Turian et al., 2010;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF39"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 102,
"text": "Huang et al., 2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word Vector Representations",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "x = ((w 1 , a w 1 ), . . . , (w m , a wm )).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word Vector Representations",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Now that we have discrete and continuous representations for all words, we can continue with the approach for computing tree structures and vectors for nonterminal nodes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Word Vector Representations",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The goal of supervised parsing is to learn a function g : X \u2192 Y, where X is the set of sentences and Y is the set of all possible labeled binary parse trees. The set of all possible trees for a given sentence x i is defined as Y (x i ) and the correct tree for a sentence is y i . We first define a structured margin loss \u2206(y i ,\u0177) for predicting a tree\u0177 for a given correct tree. The loss increases the more incorrect the proposed parse tree is (Goodman, 1998) . The discrepancy between trees is measured by counting the number of nodes N (y) with an incorrect span (or label) in the proposed tree:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 446,
"end": 461,
"text": "(Goodman, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Max-Margin Training Objective for CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "\u2206(y i ,\u0177) = d\u2208N (\u0177) \u03ba1{d / \u2208 N (y i )}.",
"eq_num": "(1)"
}
],
"section": "Max-Margin Training Objective for CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "We set \u03ba = 0.1 in all experiments. For a given set of training instances (x i , y i ), we search for the function g \u03b8 , parameterized by \u03b8, with the smallest expected loss on a new sentence. It has the following form:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Max-Margin Training Objective for CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "g \u03b8 (x) = arg max y\u2208Y (x) s(CVG(\u03b8, x,\u0177)),",
"eq_num": "(2)"
}
],
"section": "Max-Margin Training Objective for CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "where the tree is found by the Compositional Vector Grammar (CVG) introduced below and then scored via the function s. The higher the score of a tree the more confident the algorithm is that its structure is correct. This max-margin, structureprediction objective (Taskar et al., 2004; Ratliff et al., 2007; Socher et al., 2011b) trains the CVG so that the highest scoring tree will be the correct tree: g \u03b8 (x i ) = y i and its score will be larger up to a margin to other possible trees\u0177 \u2208 Y(x i ):",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 264,
"end": 285,
"text": "(Taskar et al., 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 307,
"text": "Ratliff et al., 2007;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 329,
"text": "Socher et al., 2011b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Max-Margin Training Objective for CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "s(CVG(\u03b8, x i , y i )) \u2265 s(CVG(\u03b8, x i ,\u0177)) + \u2206(y i ,\u0177).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Max-Margin Training Objective for CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "This leads to the regularized risk function for m training examples:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Max-Margin Training Objective for CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "J(\u03b8) = 1 m m i=1 r i (\u03b8) + \u03bb 2 \u03b8 2 2 ,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Max-Margin Training Objective for CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "where",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Max-Margin Training Objective for CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "r i (\u03b8) = max y\u2208Y (x i ) s(CVG(x i ,\u0177)) + \u2206(y i ,\u0177) \u2212 s(CVG(x i , y i ))",
"eq_num": "(3)"
}
],
"section": "Max-Margin Training Objective for CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Intuitively, to minimize this objective, the score of the correct tree y i is increased and the score of the highest scoring incorrect tree\u0177 is decreased.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Max-Margin Training Objective for CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "For ease of exposition, we first describe how to score an existing fully labeled tree with a standard RNN and then with a CVG. The subsequent section will then describe a bottom-up beam search and its approximation for finding the optimal tree. Assume, for now, we are given a labeled parse tree as shown in Fig. 2 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 308,
"end": 314,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "We define the word representations as (vector, POS) pairs: ((a, A), (b, B), (c, C)), where the vectors are defined as in Sec. 3.1 and the POS tags come from a PCFG. The standard RNN essentially ignores all POS tags and syntactic categories and each nonterminal node is associated with the same neural network (i.e., the weights across nodes are fully tied). We can represent the binary tree in Fig. 2 in the form of branching triplets (p \u2192 c 1 c 2 ). Each such triplet denotes that a parent node p has two children and each c k can be either a word vector or a non-terminal node in the tree. For the example in Fig. 2 , we would get the triples ((p 1 \u2192 bc), (p 2 \u2192 ap 1 )). Note that in order to replicate the neural network and compute node representations in a bottom up fashion, the parent must have the same dimensionality as the children:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 394,
"end": 400,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 617,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "p \u2208 R n .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Given this tree structure, we can now compute activations for each node from the bottom up. We begin by computing the activation for p 1 using the children's word vectors. We first concatenate the children's representations b, c \u2208 R n\u00d71 into a vector b c \u2208 R 2n\u00d71 . Then the composition function multiplies this vector by the parameter weights of the RNN W \u2208 R n\u00d72n and applies an element-wise nonlinearity function f = tanh to the output vector. The resulting output p (1) is then given as input to compute p (2) . Figure 2 : An example tree with a simple Recursive Neural Network: The same weight matrix is replicated and used to compute all non-terminal node representations. Leaf nodes are n-dimensional vector representations of words.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 510,
"end": 513,
"text": "(2)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 516,
"end": 524,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "p (1) = f W b c , p (2) = f W a p 1 (A, a= ) (B, b= ) (C, c= ) P (1) , p (1) = P (2) , p (2) = Standard Recursive Neural Network = f W b c = f W a p (1)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "In order to compute a score of how plausible of a syntactic constituent a parent is the RNN uses a single-unit linear layer for all i:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "s(p (i) ) = v T p (i) ,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "where v \u2208 R n is a vector of parameters that need to be trained. This score will be used to find the highest scoring tree. For more details on how standard RNNs can be used for parsing, see Socher et al. (2011b) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 190,
"end": 211,
"text": "Socher et al. (2011b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "The standard RNN requires a single composition function to capture all types of compositions: adjectives and nouns, verbs and nouns, adverbs and adjectives, etc. Even though this function is a powerful one, we find a single neural network weight matrix cannot fully capture the richness of compositionality. Several extensions are possible: A two-layered RNN would provide more expressive power, however, it is much harder to train because the resulting neural network becomes very deep and suffers from vanishing gradient problems. proposed to give every single word a matrix and a vector. The matrix is then applied to the sibling node's vector during the composition. While this results in a powerful composition function that essentially depends on the words being combined, the number of model parameters explodes and the composition functions do not capture the syntactic commonalities between similar POS tags or syntactic categories.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Based on the above considerations, we propose the Compositional Vector Grammar (CVG) that conditions the composition function at each node on discrete syntactic categories extracted from a (A, a= ) (B, b= ) (C, c= ) P (1) , p (1) = P (2) , p (2) = Syntactically Untied Recursive Neural Network = f W (B,C) b c = f W (A,P ) a p (1) (1) Figure 3 : Example of a syntactically untied RNN in which the function to compute a parent vector depends on the syntactic categories of its children which we assume are given for now.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 218,
"end": 221,
"text": "(1)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 305,
"text": "(B,C)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 330,
"text": "(1)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 335,
"end": 343,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "PCFG. Hence, CVGs combine discrete, syntactic rule probabilities and continuous vector compositions. The idea is that the syntactic categories of the children determine what composition function to use for computing the vector of their parents.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "While not perfect, a dedicated composition function for each rule RHS can well capture common composition processes such as adjective or adverb modification versus noun or clausal complementation. For instance, it could learn that an NP should be similar to its head noun and little influenced by a determiner, whereas in an adjective modification both words considerably determine the meaning of a phrase. The original RNN is parameterized by a single weight matrix W . In contrast, the CVG uses a syntactically untied RNN (SU-RNN) which has a set of such weights. The size of this set depends on the number of sibling category combinations in the PCFG. Fig. 3 shows an example SU-RNN that computes parent vectors with syntactically untied weights. The CVG computes the first parent vector via the SU-RNN:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 655,
"end": 661,
"text": "Fig. 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "p (1) = f W (B,C) b c ,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "where W (B,C) \u2208 R n\u00d72n is now a matrix that depends on the categories of the two children. In this bottom up procedure, the score for each node consists of summing two elements: First, a single linear unit that scores the parent vector and second, the log probability of the PCFG for the rule that combines these two children:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "s p (1) = v (B,C) T p (1) + log P (P 1 \u2192 B C),",
"eq_num": "(4)"
}
],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "where P (P 1 \u2192 B C) comes from the PCFG. This can be interpreted as the log probability of a discrete-continuous rule application with the following factorization:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "P ((P 1 , p 1 ) \u2192 (B, b)(C, c)) (5) = P (p 1 \u2192 b c|P 1 \u2192 B C)P (P 1 \u2192 B C),",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Note, however, that due to the continuous nature of the word vectors, the probability of such a CVG rule application is not comparable to probabilities provided by a PCFG since the latter sum to 1 for all children.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Assuming that node p 1 has syntactic category P 1 , we compute the second parent vector via:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "p (2) = f W (A,P 1 ) a p (1) .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "The score of the last parent in this trigram is computed via:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "s p (2) = v (A,P 1 ) T p (2) + log P (P 2 \u2192 A P 1 ).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Scoring Trees with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "The above scores (Eq. 4) are used in the search for the correct tree for a sentence. The goodness of a tree is measured in terms of its score and the CVG score of a complete tree is the sum of the scores at each node:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parsing with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "s(CVG(\u03b8, x,\u0177)) = d\u2208N (\u0177) s p d .",
"eq_num": "(6)"
}
],
"section": "Parsing with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "The main objective function in Eq. 3 includes a maximization over all possible trees max\u0177 \u2208Y (x) . Finding the global maximum, however, cannot be done efficiently for longer sentences nor can we use dynamic programming. This is due to the fact that the vectors break the independence assumptions of the base PCFG. A (category, vector) node representation is dependent on all the words in its span and hence to find the true global optimum, we would have to compute the scores for all binary trees. For a sentence of length n, there are Catalan(n) many possible binary trees which is very large even for moderately long sentences. One could use a bottom-up beam search, keeping a k-best list at every cell of the chart, possibly for each syntactic category. This beam search inference procedure is still considerably slower than using only the simplified base PCFG, especially since it has a small state space (see next section for details). Since each probability look-up is cheap but computing SU-RNN scores requires a matrix product, we would like to reduce the number of SU-RNN score computations to only those trees that require semantic information. We note that labeled F1 of the Stanford PCFG parser on the test set is 86.17%. However, if one used an oracle to select the best tree from the top 200 trees that it produces, one could get an F1 of 95.46%.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parsing with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "We use this knowledge to speed up inference via two bottom-up passes through the parsing chart. During the first one, we use only the base PCFG to run CKY dynamic programming through the tree. The k = 200-best parses at the top cell of the chart are calculated using the efficient algorithm of (Huang and Chiang, 2005) . Then, the second pass is a beam search with the full CVG model (including the more expensive matrix multiplications of the SU-RNN). This beam search only considers phrases that appear in the top 200 parses. This is similar to a re-ranking setup but with one main difference: the SU-RNN rule score computation at each node still only has access to its child vectors, not the whole tree or other global features. This allows the second pass to be very fast. We use this setup in our experiments below.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 294,
"end": 318,
"text": "(Huang and Chiang, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parsing with CVGs",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "The full CVG model is trained in two stages. First the base PCFG is trained and its top trees are cached and then used for training the SU-RNN conditioned on the PCFG. The SU-RNN is trained using the objective in Eq. 3 and the scores as exemplified by Eq. 6. For each sentence, we use the method described above to efficiently find an approximation for the optimal tree.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training SU-RNNs",
"sec_num": "3.5"
},
{
"text": "To minimize the objective we want to increase the scores of the correct tree's constituents and decrease the score of those in the highest scoring incorrect tree. Derivatives are computed via backpropagation through structure (BTS) (Goller and K\u00fcchler, 1996) . The derivative of tree i has to be taken with respect to all parameter matrices W (AB) that appear in it. The main difference between backpropagation in standard RNNs and SU-RNNs is that the derivatives at each node only add to the overall derivative of the specific matrix at that node. For more details on backpropagation through RNNs, see Socher et al. (2010) ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 232,
"end": 258,
"text": "(Goller and K\u00fcchler, 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 603,
"end": 623,
"text": "Socher et al. (2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Training SU-RNNs",
"sec_num": "3.5"
},
{
"text": "The objective function is not differentiable due to the hinge loss. Therefore, we generalize gradient ascent via the subgradient method (Ratliff et al., 2007) which computes a gradient-like direction. Let \u03b8 = (X, W (\u2022\u2022) , v (\u2022\u2022) ) \u2208 R M be a vector of all M model parameters, where we denote W (\u2022\u2022) as the set of matrices that appear in the training set. The subgradient of Eq. 3 becomes:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 158,
"text": "(Ratliff et al., 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 219,
"text": "(\u2022\u2022)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 228,
"text": "(\u2022\u2022)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 298,
"text": "(\u2022\u2022)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Subgradient Methods and AdaGrad",
"sec_num": "3.6"
},
{
"text": "\u2202J \u2202\u03b8 = i \u2202s(x i ,\u0177 max ) \u2202\u03b8 \u2212 \u2202s(x i , y i ) \u2202\u03b8 + \u03b8,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Subgradient Methods and AdaGrad",
"sec_num": "3.6"
},
{
"text": "where\u0177 max is the tree with the highest score. To minimize the objective, we use the diagonal variant of AdaGrad (Duchi et al., 2011) with minibatches. For our parameter updates, we first define g \u03c4 \u2208 R M \u00d71 to be the subgradient at time step \u03c4 and G t = t \u03c4 =1 g \u03c4 g T \u03c4 . The parameter update at time step t then becomes:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 133,
"text": "(Duchi et al., 2011)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Subgradient Methods and AdaGrad",
"sec_num": "3.6"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "\u03b8 t = \u03b8 t\u22121 \u2212 \u03b1 (diag(G t )) \u22121/2 g t ,",
"eq_num": "(7)"
}
],
"section": "Subgradient Methods and AdaGrad",
"sec_num": "3.6"
},
{
"text": "where \u03b1 is the learning rate. Since we use the diagonal of G t , we only have to store M values and the update becomes fast to compute: At time step t, the update for the i'th parameter \u03b8 t,i is:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Subgradient Methods and AdaGrad",
"sec_num": "3.6"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "\u03b8 t,i = \u03b8 t\u22121,i \u2212 \u03b1 t \u03c4 =1 g 2 \u03c4,i g t,i .",
"eq_num": "(8)"
}
],
"section": "Subgradient Methods and AdaGrad",
"sec_num": "3.6"
},
{
"text": "Hence, the learning rate is adapting differently for each parameter and rare parameters get larger updates than frequently occurring parameters. This is helpful in our setting since some W matrices appear in only a few training trees. This procedure found much better optima (by \u22483% labeled F1 on the dev set), and converged more quickly than L-BFGS which we used previously in RNN training (Socher et al., 2011a) . Training time is roughly 4 hours on a single machine.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 391,
"end": 413,
"text": "(Socher et al., 2011a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Subgradient Methods and AdaGrad",
"sec_num": "3.6"
},
{
"text": "In the absence of any knowledge on how to combine two categories, our prior for combining two vectors is to average them instead of performing a completely random projection. Hence, we initialize the binary W matrices with:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Initialization of Weight Matrices",
"sec_num": "3.7"
},
{
"text": "W (\u2022\u2022) = 0.5[I n\u00d7n I n\u00d7n 0 n\u00d71 ] + ,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Initialization of Weight Matrices",
"sec_num": "3.7"
},
{
"text": "where we include the bias in the last column and the random variable is uniformly distributed: \u223c U[\u22120.001, 0.001]. The first block is multiplied by the left child and the second by the right child:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Initialization of Weight Matrices",
"sec_num": "3.7"
},
{
"text": "W (AB) \uf8ee \uf8f0 a b 1 \uf8f9 \uf8fb = W (A) W (B) bias \uf8ee \uf8f0 a b 1 \uf8f9 \uf8fb = W (A) a + W (B) b + bias.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Initialization of Weight Matrices",
"sec_num": "3.7"
},
{
"text": "We evaluate the CVG in two ways: First, by a standard parsing evaluation on Penn Treebank WSJ and then by analyzing the model errors in detail.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We used the first 20 files of WSJ section 22 to cross-validate several model and optimization choices. The base PCFG uses simplified categories of the Stanford PCFG Parser (Klein and Manning, 2003a) . We decreased the state splitting of the PCFG grammar (which helps both by making it less sparse and by reducing the number of parameters in the SU-RNN) by adding the following options to training: '-noRightRec -dominatesV 0 -baseNP 0'. This reduces the number of states from 15,276 to 12,061 states and 602 POS tags. These include split categories, such as parent annotation categories like VP\u02c6S. Furthermore, we ignore all category splits for the SU-RNN weights, resulting in 66 unary and 882 binary child pairs. Hence, the SU-RNN has 66+882 transformation matrices and scoring vectors. Note that any PCFG, including latent annotation PCFGs (Matsuzaki et al., 2005 ) could be used. However, since the vectors will capture lexical and semantic information, even simple base PCFGs can be substantially improved. Since the computational complexity of PCFGs depends on the number of states, a base PCFG with fewer states is much faster.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 198,
"text": "(Klein and Manning, 2003a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 843,
"end": 866,
"text": "(Matsuzaki et al., 2005",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Cross-validating Hyperparameters",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Testing on the full WSJ section 22 dev set (1700 sentences) takes roughly 470 seconds with the simple base PCFG, 1320 seconds with our new CVG and 1600 seconds with the currently published Stanford factored parser. Hence, increased performance comes also with a speed improvement of approximately 20%.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Cross-validating Hyperparameters",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "We fix the same regularization of \u03bb = 10 \u22124 for all parameters. The minibatch size was set to performance and were faster than 50-,100-or 200dimensional ones. We hypothesize that the larger word vector sizes, while capturing more semantic knowledge, result in too many SU-RNN matrix parameters to train and hence perform worse.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Cross-validating Hyperparameters",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "The dev set accuracy of the best model is 90.93% labeled F1 on all sentences. This model resulted in 90.44% on the final test set (WSJ section 23). Table 1 compares our results to the two Stanford parser variants (the unlexicalized PCFG (Klein and Manning, 2003a) and the factored parser (Klein and Manning, 2003b) ) and other parsers that use richer state representations: the Berkeley parser (Petrov and Klein, 2007) , Collins parser (Collins, 1997) , SSN: a statistical neural network parser (Henderson, 2004) , Factored PCFGs , Charniak-SelfTrain: the self-training approach of McClosky et al. (2006) , which bootstraps and parses additional large corpora multiple times, Charniak-RS: the state of the art self-trained and discriminatively re-ranked Charniak-Johnson parser combining (Charniak, 2000; McClosky et al., 2006; Charniak and Johnson, 2005) . See Kummerfeld et al. (2012) for more comparisons. We compare also to a standard RNN 'CVG (RNN)' and to the proposed CVG with SU-RNNs.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 237,
"end": 263,
"text": "(Klein and Manning, 2003a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 314,
"text": "(Klein and Manning, 2003b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 418,
"text": "(Petrov and Klein, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 436,
"end": 451,
"text": "(Collins, 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 495,
"end": 512,
"text": "(Henderson, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 582,
"end": 604,
"text": "McClosky et al. (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 788,
"end": 804,
"text": "(Charniak, 2000;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 805,
"end": 827,
"text": "McClosky et al., 2006;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 828,
"end": 855,
"text": "Charniak and Johnson, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 862,
"end": 886,
"text": "Kummerfeld et al. (2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 155,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results on WSJ",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "Analysis of Error Types. Table 2 shows a detailed comparison of different errors. We use the code provided by Kummerfeld et al. (2012) and compare to the previous version of the Stanford factored parser as well as to the Berkeley and Charniak-reranked-self-trained parsers (defined above). See Kummerfeld et al. (2012) Analysis of Composition Matrices. An analysis of the norms of the binary matrices reveals that the model learns a soft vectorized notion of head words: Head words are given larger weights and importance when computing the parent vector: For the matrices combining siblings with categories VP:PP, VP:NP and VP:PRT, the weights in the part of the matrix which is multiplied with the VP child vector dominates. Similarly NPs dominate DTs. Fig. 5 shows example matrices. The two strong diagonals are due to the initialization described in Sec. 3.7. Semantic Transfer for PP Attachments. In this small model analysis, we use two pairs of sentences that the original Stanford parser and the CVG did not parse correctly after training on the WSJ. We then continue to train both parsers on two similar sentences and then analyze if the parsers correctly transferred the knowledge. The training sentences are He eats spaghetti with a fork. and She eats spaghetti with pork. The very similar test sentences are He eats spaghetti with a spoon. and He eats spaghetti with meat. Initially, both parsers incorrectly attach the PP to the verb in both test sentences. After training, the CVG parses both correctly, while the factored Stanford parser incorrectly attaches both PPs to spaghetti. The CVG's ability to transfer the correct PP attachments is due to the semantic word vector similarity between the words in the sentences. Fig. 4 shows the outputs of the two parsers. showing that head words dominate the composition. The model learns to not give determiners much importance. The two diagonals show clearly the two blocks that are multiplied with the left and right children, respectively.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 134,
"text": "Kummerfeld et al. (2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 318,
"text": "Kummerfeld et al. (2012)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 32,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
},
{
"start": 755,
"end": 761,
"text": "Fig. 5",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1736,
"end": 1742,
"text": "Fig. 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Model Analysis",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "We introduced Compositional Vector Grammars (CVGs), a parsing model that combines the speed of small-state PCFGs with the semantic richness of neural word representations and compositional phrase vectors. The compositional vectors are learned with a new syntactically untied recursive neural network. This model is linguistically more plausible since it chooses different composition functions for a parent node based on the syntactic categories of its children. The CVG obtains 90.44% labeled F1 on the full WSJ test set and is 20% faster than the previous Stanford parser.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": ". We also cross-validated on AdaGrad's learning rate which was eventually set to \u03b1 = 0.1 and word vector size. The 25-dimensional vectors provided byTurian et al. (2010) provided the best",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "We thank Percy Liang for chats about the paper. Richard is supported by a Microsoft Research PhD fellowship. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Deep Exploration and Filtering of Text (DEFT) Program under Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) prime contract no. FA8750-13-2-0040, and the DARPA Deep Learning program under contract number FA8650-10-C-7020. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of DARPA, AFRL, or the US government.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "A neural probabilistic language model",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bengio",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ducharme",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vincent",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Janvin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Journal of Machine Learning Research",
"volume": "3",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1137--1155",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Y. Bengio, R. Ducharme, P. Vincent, and C. Janvin. 2003. A neural probabilistic language model. Jour- nal of Machine Learning Research, 3:1137-1155.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Class-based n-gram models of natural language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [
"F"
],
"last": "Brown",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [
"V"
],
"last": "Desouza",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Mercer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Della Pietra",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"C"
],
"last": "Lai",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "18",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "P. F. Brown, P. V. deSouza, R. L. Mercer, V. J. Della Pietra, and J. C. Lai. 1992. Class-based n-gram models of natural language. Computational Lin- guistics, 18.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Syntactic constraints on paraphrases extracted from parallel corpora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Callison-Burch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "196--205",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Callison-Burch. 2008. Syntactic constraints on paraphrases extracted from parallel corpora. In Pro- ceedings of EMNLP, pages 196-205.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Coarse-to-fine n-best parsing and maxent discriminative reranking",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charniak",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "E. Charniak and M. Johnson. 2005. Coarse-to-fine n-best parsing and maxent discriminative reranking. In ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "A maximum-entropy-inspired parser",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charniak",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "132--139",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "E. Charniak. 2000. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 132-139.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collins",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Collins. 1997. Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collins",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "29",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "589--637",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Collins. 2003. Head-driven statistical models for natural language parsing. Computational Linguis- tics, 29(4):589-637.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "A unified architecture for natural language processing: deep neural networks with multitask learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collobert",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weston",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of ICML",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "160--167",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Collobert and J. Weston. 2008. A unified archi- tecture for natural language processing: deep neural networks with multitask learning. In Proceedings of ICML, pages 160-167.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Towards incremental parsing of natural language using recursive neural networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Costa",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Frasconi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lombardo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Soda",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "F. Costa, P. Frasconi, V. Lombardo, and G. Soda. 2003. Towards incremental parsing of natural language us- ing recursive neural networks. Applied Intelligence.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Adaptive subgradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Duchi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hazan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Singer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "JMLR",
"volume": "12",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Duchi, E. Hazan, and Y. Singer. 2011. Adaptive sub- gradient methods for online learning and stochastic optimization. JMLR, 12, July.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Elman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1991,
"venue": "Machine Learning",
"volume": "7",
"issue": "",
"pages": "195--225",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. L. Elman. 1991. Distributed representations, sim- ple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure. Machine Learning, 7(2-3):195-225.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Efficient, feature-based, conditional random field parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Finkel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kleeman",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "959--967",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. R. Finkel, A. Kleeman, and C. D. Manning. 2008. Efficient, feature-based, conditional random field parsing. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 959-967.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "The necessity of parsing for predicate argument recognition",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gildea",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "239--246",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Gildea and M. Palmer. 2002. The necessity of pars- ing for predicate argument recognition. In Proceed- ings of ACL, pages 239-246.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Learning taskdependent distributed representations by backpropagation through structure",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "K\u00fcchler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural Networks",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Goller and A. K\u00fcchler. 1996. Learning task- dependent distributed representations by backprop- agation through structure. In Proceedings of the In- ternational Conference on Neural Networks.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Parsing Inside-Out",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goodman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Goodman. 1998. Parsing Inside-Out. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Training factored pcfgs with expectation propagation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hall",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Hall and D. Klein. 2012. Training factored pcfgs with expectation propagation. In EMNLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Neural network probability estimation for broad coverage parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Henderson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of EACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Henderson. 2003. Neural network probability esti- mation for broad coverage parsing. In Proceedings of EACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Discriminative training of a neural network statistical parser",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Henderson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Henderson. 2004. Discriminative training of a neu- ral network statistical parser. In ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Better k-best parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Liang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Huang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chiang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT 2005",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Liang Huang and David Chiang. 2005. Better k-best parsing. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT 2005).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Improving Word Representations via Global Context and Multiple Word Prototypes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [
"H"
],
"last": "Huang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Socher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Ng",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "E. H. Huang, R. Socher, C. D. Manning, and A. Y. Ng. 2012. Improving Word Representations via Global Context and Multiple Word Prototypes. In ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "A unified sentence space for categorical distributionalcompositional semantics: Theory and experiments",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kartsaklis",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sadrzadeh",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pulman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "Proceedings of 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING): Posters",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Kartsaklis, M. Sadrzadeh, and S. Pulman. 2012. A unified sentence space for categorical distributional- compositional semantics: Theory and experiments. Proceedings of 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING): Posters.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Accurate unlexicalized parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "423--430",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Klein and C. D. Manning. 2003a. Accurate un- lexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 423-430.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Fast exact inference with a factored model for natural language parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "NIPS",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Klein and C.D. Manning. 2003b. Fast exact in- ference with a factored model for natural language parsing. In NIPS.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Parser showdown at the wall street corral: An empirical investigation of error types in parser output",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"K"
],
"last": "Kummerfeld",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hall",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Curran",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. K. Kummerfeld, D. Hall, J. R. Curran, and D. Klein. 2012. Parser showdown at the wall street corral: An empirical investigation of error types in parser out- put. In EMNLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Tiled convolutional neural networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Q",
"middle": [
"V"
],
"last": "Le",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ngiam",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Z",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chia",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Koh",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Ng",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "NIPS",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Q. V. Le, J. Ngiam, Z. Chen, D. Chia, P. W. Koh, and A. Y. Ng. 2010. Tiled convolutional neural net- works. In NIPS.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Probabilistic cfg with latent annotations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Matsuzaki",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Miyao",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tsujii",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Matsuzaki, Y. Miyao, and J. Tsujii. 2005. Proba- bilistic cfg with latent annotations. In ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Effective self-training for parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mcclosky",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charniak",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "NAACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. McClosky, E. Charniak, and M. Johnson. 2006. Ef- fective self-training for parsing. In NAACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Wide coverage natural language processing using kernel methods and neural networks for structured data",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Menchetti",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Costa",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Frasconi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pontil",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Pattern Recognition Letters",
"volume": "26",
"issue": "12",
"pages": "1896--1906",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Menchetti, F. Costa, P. Frasconi, and M. Pon- til. 2005. Wide coverage natural language pro- cessing using kernel methods and neural networks for structured data. Pattern Recognition Letters, 26(12):1896-1906.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Linguistic regularities in continuous spaceword representations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mikolov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yih",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zweig",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2013,
"venue": "HLT-NAACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Mikolov, W. Yih, and G. Zweig. 2013. Linguis- tic regularities in continuous spaceword representa- tions. In HLT-NAACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Improved inference for unlexicalized parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Petrov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "NAACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Petrov and D. Klein. 2007. Improved inference for unlexicalized parsing. In NAACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Learning accurate, compact, and interpretable tree annotation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Petrov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Barrett",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Thibaux",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "433--440",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. Petrov, L. Barrett, R. Thibaux, and D. Klein. 2006. Learning accurate, compact, and interpretable tree annotation. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 433-440.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "Online) subgradient methods for structured prediction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ratliff",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Bagnell",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zinkevich",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AIStats)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "N. Ratliff, J. A. Bagnell, and M. Zinkevich. 2007. (On- line) subgradient methods for structured prediction. In Eleventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AIStats).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "Learning continuous phrase representations and syntactic parsing with recursive neural networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Socher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Ng",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of the NIPS-2010 Deep Learning and Unsupervised Feature Learning Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Socher, C. D. Manning, and A. Y. Ng. 2010. Learn- ing continuous phrase representations and syntactic parsing with recursive neural networks. In Proceed- ings of the NIPS-2010 Deep Learning and Unsuper- vised Feature Learning Workshop.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF33": {
"ref_id": "b33",
"title": "Dynamic Pooling and Unfolding Recursive Autoencoders for Paraphrase Detection",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Socher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [
"H"
],
"last": "Huang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pennington",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Ng",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "NIPS",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Socher, E. H. Huang, J. Pennington, A. Y. Ng, and C. D. Manning. 2011a. Dynamic Pooling and Un- folding Recursive Autoencoders for Paraphrase De- tection. In NIPS. MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF34": {
"ref_id": "b34",
"title": "Parsing Natural Scenes and Natural Language with Recursive Neural Networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Socher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Ng",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2011,
"venue": "ICML",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Socher, C. Lin, A. Y. Ng, and C.D. Manning. 2011b. Parsing Natural Scenes and Natural Language with Recursive Neural Networks. In ICML.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF35": {
"ref_id": "b35",
"title": "Semantic Compositionality Through Recursive Matrix-Vector Spaces",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Socher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Huval",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Ng",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2012,
"venue": "EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Socher, B. Huval, C. D. Manning, and A. Y. Ng. 2012. Semantic Compositionality Through Recur- sive Matrix-Vector Spaces. In EMNLP.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF36": {
"ref_id": "b36",
"title": "Max-margin parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Taskar",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collins",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Koller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of EMNLP",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--8",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B. Taskar, D. Klein, M. Collins, D. Koller, and C. Man- ning. 2004. Max-margin parsing. In Proceedings of EMNLP, pages 1-8.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF37": {
"ref_id": "b37",
"title": "Porting statistical parsers with data-defined kernels",
"authors": [
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Titov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Henderson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "I. Titov and J. Henderson. 2006. Porting statistical parsers with data-defined kernels. In CoNLL-X.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF38": {
"ref_id": "b38",
"title": "Constituent parsing with incremental sigmoid belief networks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Titov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Henderson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "I. Titov and J. Henderson. 2007. Constituent parsing with incremental sigmoid belief networks. In ACL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF39": {
"ref_id": "b39",
"title": "Word representations: a simple and general method for semisupervised learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Turian",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ratinov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bengio",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "384--394",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "J. Turian, L. Ratinov, and Y. Bengio. 2010. Word rep- resentations: a simple and general method for semi- supervised learning. In Proceedings of ACL, pages 384-394.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF40": {
"ref_id": "b40",
"title": "From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Turney",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pantel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research",
"volume": "37",
"issue": "",
"pages": "141--188",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "P. D. Turney and P. Pantel. 2010. From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Jour- nal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37:141-188.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"text": "Test sentences of semantic transfer for PP attachments. The CVG was able to transfer semantic word knowledge from two related training sentences. In contrast, the Stanford parser could not distinguish the PP attachments based on the word semantics. Three binary composition matrices",
"uris": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"num": null,
"text": "Comparison of parsers with richer state representations on the WSJ. The last line is the self-trained re-ranked Charniak parser.",
"content": "<table/>",
"html": null,
"type_str": "table"
},
"TABREF3": {
"num": null,
"text": "Detailed comparison of different parsers.",
"content": "<table><tr><td>the largest sources of improved performance over</td></tr><tr><td>the original Stanford factored parser is in the cor-</td></tr><tr><td>rect placement of PP phrases. When measuring</td></tr><tr><td>only the F1 of parse nodes that include at least one</td></tr><tr><td>PP child, the CVG improves the Stanford parser</td></tr><tr><td>by 6.2% to an F1 of 77.54%. This is a 0.23 re-</td></tr><tr><td>duction in the average number of bracket errors</td></tr><tr><td>per sentence. The 'Other' category includes VP,</td></tr><tr><td>PRN and other attachments, appositives and inter-</td></tr><tr><td>nal structures of modifiers and QPs.</td></tr></table>",
"html": null,
"type_str": "table"
}
}
}
} |