Discriminative training of a neural network statistical parser

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 95-102

  Henderson, James ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

DISCRIMINATIVE LEARNING; DISCRIMINATIVE METHODS; DISCRIMINATIVE TRAINING; GENERATIVE METHODS; LEARNING METHODS; MACHINE LEARNING APPLICATIONS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PARSING; NEURAL-NETWORKS; PROBABILITY MODELLING; STATISTICAL PARSER;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 80053361259     PISSN: 0736587X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Christopher M. Bishop. 1995. Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
2. Rens Bod. 2003. An efficient implementation of a new DOP model. In Proc. 10th Conf. of European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Budapest, Hungary.
3. Eugene Charniak. 2000. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proc. 1st Meeting of North American Chapter of Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 132–139, Seattle, Washington.
4. Michael Collins and Nigel Duffy. 2002. New ranking algorithms for parsing and tagging: Kernels over discrete structures and the voted perceptron. In Proc. 35th Meeting of Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 263–270.
5. Michael Collins. 1999. Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
6. Michael Collins. 2000. Discriminative reranking for natural language parsing. In Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, pages 175–182, Stanford, CA.
7. James Henderson. 2003a. Generative versus discriminative models for statistical left-corner parsing. In Proc. 8th Int. Workshop on Parsing Technologies, pages 115–126, Nancy, France.
8. James Henderson. 2003b. Inducing history representations for broad coverage statistical parsing. In Proc. joint meeting of North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the Human Language Technology Conf., pages 103–110, Edmonton, Canada.
9. Mark Johnson. 2001. Joint and conditional estimation of tagging and parsing models. In Proc. 39th Meeting of Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 314–321, Toulouse, France.
10. Dan Klein and Christopher D. Manning. 2002. Conditional structure versus conditional estimation in NLP models. In Proc. Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9–16, Univ. of Pennsylvania, PA.
11. Peter Lane and James Henderson. 2001. Incremental syntactic parsing of natural language corpora with Simple Synchrony Networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 13(2):219–231.
12. Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313–330.
13. A. Y. Ng and M. I. Jordan. 2002. On discriminative vs. generative classifiers: A comparison of logistic regression and naive bayes. In T. G. Dietterich, S. Becker, and Z. Ghahramani, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14, Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
14. Adwait Ratnaparkhi. 1996. A maximum entropy model for part-of-speech tagging. In Proc. Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 133–142, Univ. of Pennsylvania, PA.
15. Adwait Ratnaparkhi. 1999. Learning to parse natural language with maximum entropy models. Machine Learning, 34:151–175.
16. D.J. Rosenkrantz and P.M. Lewis. 1970. Deterministic left corner parsing. In Proc. 11th Symposium on Switching and Automata Theory, pages 139–152.
17. Vladimir N. Vapnik. 1995. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer-Verlag, New York.