Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2018
DOI: 10.18653/v1/d18-1276
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Free as in Free Word Order: An Energy Based Model for Word Segmentation and Morphological Tagging in Sanskrit

Abstract: The configurational information in sentences of a free word order language such as Sanskrit is of limited use. Thus, the context of the entire sentence will be desirable even for basic processing tasks such as word segmentation. We propose a structured prediction framework that jointly solves the word segmentation and morphological tagging tasks in Sanskrit. We build an energy based model where we adopt approaches generally employed in graph based parsing techniques (McDonald et al., 2005a;Carreras, 2007). Our… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

4
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
(50 reference statements)
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More contextual features and different tagger architectures have been found to be much better for tagging languages that lack articles like the and languages with freer word order than English, e.g. Sanskrit [28] or Turkish [29]. For language of people with neurological deficits, similar such alternative taggers these might classify parts of speech more like a human expert than the present system does.…”
Section: Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More contextual features and different tagger architectures have been found to be much better for tagging languages that lack articles like the and languages with freer word order than English, e.g. Sanskrit [28] or Turkish [29]. For language of people with neurological deficits, similar such alternative taggers these might classify parts of speech more like a human expert than the present system does.…”
Section: Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In MRLs, hand-crafted features still form a crucial component in contributing to the performance of the state-of-the-art systems for tasks such as morphological parsing and dependency parsing More et al, 2019;Seeker and Ç etinoglu 2015). But Krishna et al (2018) learn a feature function using the Path Ranking Algorithm (PRA) (Lao and Cohen 2010) for the joint task of word segmentation and morphological parsing. PRA essentially maps the problem of learning a feature function to that of automatic learning of horn clauses (Gardner, Talukdar, and Mitchell 2015), where each clause is a morphological constraint.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The domain knowledge required here confines to just defining the literals, the combinations of which will be used to form the clauses. In Krishna et al (2018), morphological tags and grammatical categories form the literals and the feature (clause) values are calculated using distributional information from a morphologically tagged corpus. We find that the same feature function can be used effectively for all the standalone and joint tasks we experimented with, including the downstream morphosyntactic tasks.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations