Languages as hyperplanes: Grammatical inference with string kernels

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4212 LNAI, Issue , 2006, Pages 90-101

  Clark, Alexander ^a   Costa Florêncio, Christophe ^a   Watkins, Chris ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; DATA STRUCTURES; FEATURE EXTRACTION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS;

DATA SETS; HYPERPLANES; STRING KERNELS;

CONTEXT SENSITIVE LANGUAGES;

EID: 33750423543     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11871842_13     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Bach, E. (1981). Discontinuous constituents in generalized categorial grammars. North East Linguistics Society (NELS 11) (pp. 1-12).
2. Becker, T., Rambow, O., & Niv, M. (1992). The Derivational Generative Power of Formal Systems or Scrambling is Beyond LCFRS (Technical Report 92-38). Institute For Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania.
3. n language. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Neural Information Processing, (pp. 508-513).
4. Clark, A., Costa Florêncio, C., Watkins, C., & Serayet, M. (2006). Planar languages and learnability. International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference (ICGI). Tokyo. to appear.
5. Centner, T. Q., Fenn, K. M., Margoliash, D., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2006). Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature, 440, 1204-1207.
6. Kearns, M., & Valiant, G. (1989). Cryptographic limitations on learning boolean formulae and finite automata. 21st annual ACM symposium on Theory of computation (pp. 433-444). New York: ACM.
7. Lodhi, H., Saunders, C., Shawe-Taylor, J., Cristianini, N., & Watkins, C. (2002). Text classification using string kernels. JMLR, 2, 419-444.
8. Parikh, R. J. (1966). On context-free languages. Journal of the ACM, 13, 570-581.
9. Radzinski, D. (1991). Chinese number-names, tree adjoining languages, and mild context-sensitivity. Comput. Linguist., 17, 277-299.
10. Salomaa, A. (2005). On languages defined by numerical parameters (Technical Report 663). Turku Centre for Computer Science.
11. Schölkopf, B., Smola, A., & K., M. (1998). Nonlinear component analysis as a kernel eigenvalue problem. Neural Computation, 10.
12. Shawe-Taylor, J., & Christianini, N. (2004). Kernel methods for pattern analysis. Cambridge University Press.
13. Shieber, S. M. (1985). Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 333-343.
14. Starkie, B., Coste, F., & van Zaanen, M. (2004). The Omphalos context-free grammar learning competition. International Colloquium on Grammatical Inference (pp. 16-27). Athens, Greece.
15. Vijay-Shanker, K., Weir, D. J., & Joshi, A. K. (1987). Characterizing structural descriptions produced by various grammatical formalisms. Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 104-111). Morristown, NJ, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
16. Watkins, C. (2000). Dynamic alignment kernels. In A. J. Smola, P. L. Bartlette, B. Schölkopf and D. Schuurmans (Eds.), Advances in large margin classifiers, 39-50. MIT Press.