Three New Probabilistic Models for Dependency Parsing: An Exploration
What it is about
The paper gives an O(n^3) bottom-up dynamic-programming parser for projective dependency trees, which became the basis of most projective decoders. On top of it Eisner proposes three probabilistic models: a bigram lexical affinity model (A), a sense-tagging model (B) in which words are generated with their selectional preferences, and a generative model (C) in which each word fleshes out its own children, speaker-oriented. He trains them on dependency trees derived from the Wall Street Journal part of the Penn Treebank and tests on 400 held-out sentences. Model C performs best; the paper's full results give 93% correct tags and 87% correct parents for model C, while the pilot tables are the basis for the ranking. The main claim is that lexical word-pair statistics, not constituents, carry most of the parsing signal.
For Mova
- I1. gparse/src/eisner.rs: use the Eisner chart as an exact decoder over the same scores as
en's perceptron, and report the search error: the share of EWT test sentences where the greedyentree scores below the projective optimum. - I2. en/src/parse.rs: check whether word-pair features (head word times child word) are present; if not, add them as in model A and measure cv LAS on the train folds.
- I3. en/src/ud.rs backoff tables: test whether conditioning the UPOS and FEATS backoff on the head lexeme, as in model C, improves UFeats on EWT test (95.66 now), with a run of
en ud-evaleach.
The chapters that match are 22-phrases and 23-complementation, where selectional preferences of heads and complements are described. The code touched is gparse/src/eisner.rs (the exact projective decoder), en/src/parse.rs (lexical features) and en/src/ud.rs. Measure first: the search error of en against the Eisner optimum on EWT test (idea I1), since it says whether better search is worth more than better features.
Institutions
Topics Dependency parsing
Cite
Cite as Jason M. Eisner. 1996. Three New Probabilistic Models for Dependency Parsing: An Exploration. COLING 1996 Volume 1: The 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics.
@inproceedings{eisner1996three,
title = {{Three New Probabilistic Models for Dependency Parsing: An Exploration}},
author = {Jason M. Eisner},
booktitle = {COLING 1996 Volume 1: The 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics},
year = {1996},
doi = {10.3115/992628.992688},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3115/992628.992688}
}References
- Ezra Bla.(:k, Fred ,lelinck, et a.1. 1992. Towards history-ba,sed gramnl~u:s: using richer mod(,.ls [br probabilistic i,~trsing. [u Fifth I)AI~,FA Worksh.op ou £'pecch and Natural Language, Arden (7onfcrcn(:c Ceutcr, llnrrim~m, New York, Febrl,u'y. find
- ['(enne.th W. (3mr(:h. 1988. A stochastic parts pro-gi:ntll a, nd noun l)hra,se parser for unrestri(:tcd text. In /'roe, of the 2rid (;onf. on Applied Natural Lang'uage lJroccssing, 136 148, Austin, TX. Asso(:i~Lti(,n for ('~omput~Ltimml l,inguistics, Morristowu, N.I. find
- Mi(:ha.el ./. (',ollins. 1996. A new statistical parser based on bigr~un lexi(:~fl del)cndeucies, h, l~rocc.cd - iTtfJS of tit(; 24th A CL, S~l, nt~,, (~171'Z, (]A, July. find
- Ja.sol! 1'3isner. 199(;. An empirical (:omp~H'ison of prob-~dfility nlodcls for dependeucy gl:a, lnnlaJ:. Teehnic;d ILeport IRCS 96 11, University of PennsylvaJtilt. I!'red .felinck. 1985. M~rkov sour(:e modeliug of text gener~Ltiou. In .I. Skwirzinski, editor, hnpact of IS"o-tossing 7~chniques ou (… find
- Igor A, Mel'(:uk. 1988. l)cpcndcncy Syntax: 7?worg and l'racticc. St~te University of New York Press. find
- IL Meria.hlo. 1990. Tagging text with ;L probabilistic model, lu l~rocccdinw of the IBM Natural Language. 17'L, Paris, Fra.nce, pp. 161-172. find
This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/eisner-1996-three-new-probabilistic-models-dependency/