Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2016
DOI: 10.18653/v1/d16-1004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using Left-corner Parsing to Encode Universal Structural Constraints in Grammar Induction

Abstract: Center-embedding is difficult to process and is known as a rare syntactic construction across languages. In this paper we describe a method to incorporate this assumption into the grammar induction tasks by restricting the search space of a model to trees with limited centerembedding. The key idea is the tabulation of left-corner parsing, which captures the degree of center-embedding of a parse via its stack depth. We apply the technique to learning of famous generative model, the dependency model with valence… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
43
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
43
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Grammar acquisition models (Noji and Johnson, 2016;Shain et al, 2016) then restrict this memory to some low bound: e.g. two derivation fragments.…”
Section: Likementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Grammar acquisition models (Noji and Johnson, 2016;Shain et al, 2016) then restrict this memory to some low bound: e.g. two derivation fragments.…”
Section: Likementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the grammar induction system, we try the implementation of DMV with stop-probability estimation by Mareček and Straka (2013), which is a common baseline for grammar induction (Le and Zuidema, 2015) because it is language-independent, reasonably accurate, fast, and convenient to use. We also try the grammar induction system of Naseem et al (2010), which is the state-of-the-art system on UD (Noji et al, 2016). Naseem et al (2010)'s method, like ours, has prior knowledge of what typical human languages look like.…”
Section: Comparison With Grammar Inductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As will become clear in the Experiments section, the basic model discussed previously performs poorly when used for unsupervised parsing, barely outperforming a left-branching baseline for English. We hypothesize the reason is that the basic model is fairly unconstrained: without any constraints to regularize the latent space, the induced parses will be arbitrary, since the model is only trained to maximize sentence likelihood (Naseem et al, 2010;Noji, Miyao, and Johnson, 2016). We therefore introduce posterior regularization (PR; Ganchev et al 2010) to encourage the neural network to generate well-formed trees.…”
Section: Training Objectivementioning
confidence: 99%