Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
— |
seminar-20061023-k-hall [2006/10/24 10:29] (current) |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ====== Keith Hall: Multilingual Dependency Parsing ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | 23. 10. 2006 | ||
+ | Keith Hall (Center for Language and Speech Processing, Johns Hopkins | ||
+ | University, USA) | ||
+ | Multilingual Dependency Parsing and Applications | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[ http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | Abstract: Dependency parsing has recently come to the forefront of | ||
+ | interest in the statistical parsing community, culminating in the 2006 | ||
+ | CoNLL shared task on multilingual dependency parsing. Many of the | ||
+ | competing teams made use of the Maximum Spanning Tree (MST) approach | ||
+ | pioneered by McDonald and Ribarov (McDonald et al. '05). | ||
+ | A disadvantage of the MST approach is that it requires structural scores | ||
+ | to be derived from parent-child links. This constrains the parsing models | ||
+ | to be based on very local structure; disallowing the explicit modeling of | ||
+ | subcategorization and valency as well as far simpler constraints (compound | ||
+ | adjectives, etc.). | ||
+ | In this talk, I present a two-stage dependency parser which combines a | ||
+ | K-best MST algorithm with a reranker. The advantage of such an approach is | ||
+ | that the model used by the reranker includes features defined over entire | ||
+ | tree structures. I present empirical results showing that " | ||
+ | appear in the first 50 hypotheses generated by the heavily constrained MST | ||
+ | models. Furthermore, | ||
+ | the state-of-the-art parsers. Results are presented for a subset of the | ||
+ | CoNLL competition languages as well as English. | ||
+ | Finally, I will introduce a framework for the application of dependency | ||
+ | parsing to tasks such as Speech Reconstruction and parsing of | ||
+ | resource-poor languages. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||