Improved morpho-phonological sequence processing with constraint satisfaction inference

HLT-NAACL 2006 - SIGPHON 2006: 8th Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group on Computational Phonology, Proceedings of the Workshop

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 41-49

  van den Bosch, Antal ^a   Canisius, Sander ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; SPEECH;

CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION; DATA DRIVEN; LOCAL CONTEXTS; LOCAL DECISIONS; LOCAL PREDICTION; MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS; OUTPUT SEQUENCES; PROCESSING METHOD; TRI GRAMS; WORD ACCURACIES;

PROCESSING;

EID: 70450127976     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. D. W. Aha, D. Kibler, and M. Albert. 1991. Instance-based learning algorithms. Machine Learning, 6:37-66.
2. R. H. Baayen, R. Piepenbrock, and H. van Rijn. 1993. The CELEX lexical data base on CD-ROM. Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia, PA.
3. W. Daelemans, J. Zavrel, K. Van der Sloot, and A. Van den Bosch. 2004. TiMBL: Tilburg memory based learner, version 5.1.0, reference guide. Technical Report ILK 04-02, ILK Research Group, Tilburg University.
4. R. I. Damper and J. F. G. Eastmond. 1997. Pronunciation by analogy: impact of implementational choices on performance. Language and Speech, 40:1-23.
5. E. Daya, D. Roth, and S. Wintner. 2004. Learning Hebrew roots: Machine learning with linguistic constraints. In Dekang Lin and Dekai Wu, editors, Proceedings of EMNLP 2004, pages 357-364, Barcelona, Spain, July. Association for Computational Linguistics.
6. A.P. Dempster, N.M. Laird, and D.B. Rubin. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 39(1):1-38.
7. T. G. Dietterich, H. Hild, and G. Bakiri. 1995. A comparison of ID3 and backpropagation for English text-to-speech mapping. Machine Learning, 19(1):5-28.
8. E. Noreen. 1989. Computer-intensive methods for testing hypotheses: an introduction. John Wiley and sons.
9. A. Prince and P. Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Blackwell Publishers.
10. V. Punyakanok and D. Roth. 2001. The use of classifiers in sequential inference. In NIPS-13; The 2000 Conference on Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 995-1001. The MIT Press.
11. T.J. Sejnowski and C.S. Rosenberg. 1987. Parallel networks that learn to pronounce english text. Complex Systems, 1:145-168.
12. N. Stroppa and F. Yvon. 2005. An analogical learner for morphological analysis. In Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 120-127. Association for Computational Linguistics.
13. K. Torkkola. 1993. An efficient way to learn English grapheme-to-phoneme rules automatically. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), volume 2, pages 199-202, Minneapolis.
14. A. Van den Bosch and W. Daelemans. 1993. Data-oriented methods for grapheme-to-phoneme conversion. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the EACL, pages 45-53.
15. A. Van den Bosch and W. Daelemans. 1999. Memory-based morphological analysis. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the ACL, pages 285-292, San Francisco, CA. Morgan Kaufmann.
16. A. Van den Bosch and W. Daelemans. 2005. Improving sequence segmentation learning by predicting trigrams. In I. Dagan and D. Gildea, editors, Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning.
17. A. Weijters. 1991. A simple look-up procedure superior to NETtalk? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks - ICANN-91, Espoo, Finland.
18. F. Yvon. 1996. Prononcer par analogie: motivation, formalisation et évaluation. Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunication, Paris.