A separately passive-aggressive training algorithm for joint pos tagging and dependency parsing

24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics - Proceedings of COLING 2012: Technical Papers

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1681-1698

  Li, Zhenghua ^a   Zhang, Min ^b   Che, Wanxiang ^a   Liu, Ting ^a  

^a HARBIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^b INSTITUTE FOR INFOCOMM RESEARCH   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Dependency parsing; Joint models; Part of speech tagging; Separately passiveaggressive algorithm

Indexed keywords

DEPENDENCY PARSING; JOINT MODELS; JOINT OPTIMIZATION; PART OF SPEECH TAGGING; POS TAGGING; SYNTACTIC FEATURES; TRAINING ALGORITHMS; TREEBANKS;

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; FORESTRY; OPTIMIZATION; SYNTACTICS;

LEARNING ALGORITHMS;

EID: 84876784281     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (33)

1. Auli, M. and Lopez, A. (2011). A comparison of loopy belief propagation and dual decomposition for integrated ccg supertagging and parsing. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 470-480, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
2. Bohnet, B. (2010). Top accuracy and fast dependency parsing is not a contradiction. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 89-97, Beijing, China. Coling 2010 Organizing Committee.
3. Bohnet, B. and Nivre, J. (2012). A transition-based system for joint part-of-speech tagging and labeled non-projective dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 1455-1465, Jeju Island, Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics.
4. Carreras, X. (2007). Experiments with a higher-order projective dependency parser. In Proceedings of EMNLP/CoNLL, pages 141-150.
5. Carreras, X., Collins, M., and Koo, T. (2008). Tag, dynamic programming, and the perceptron for efficient, feature-rich parsing. In CoNLL 2008: Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, pages 9-16, Manchester, England. Coling 2008 Organizing Committee.
6. Charniak, E. and Johnson, M. (2005). Coarse-to-fine n-best parsing and maxent discriminative reranking. In Proceedings of ACL-05, pages 173-180.
7. Che, W., Spitkovsky, V., and Liu, T. (2012). A comparison of chinese parsers for stanford dependencies. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 11-16, Jeju Island, Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics.
8. Collins, M. (2002). Discriminative training methods for hidden markov models: Theory and experiments with perceptron algorithms. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2002.
9. Crammer, K., Dekel, O., Keshet, J., Shalev-Shwartz, S., and Singer, Y. (2003). Online passive aggressive algorithms. In Procedings of NIPS 2003.
10. Crammer, K. and Singer, Y. (2001). Ultraconservative online algorithms for multiclass problems. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3.
11. Duan, X., Zhao, J., and Xu, B. (2007). Probabilistic models for action-based Chinese dependency parsing. In Proceedings of ECML/ECPPKDD.
12. Eisner, J. (2000). Bilexical grammars and their cubic-time parsing algorithms. In Advances in Probabilistic and Other Parsing Technologies, pages 29-62.
13. Hajǐc, J., Ciaramita, M., Johansson, R., Kawahara, D., Martí, M. A., Màrquez, L., Meyers, A., Nivre, J., Padó, S., Šťepánek, J., Strǎnák, P., Surdeanu, M., Xue, N., and Zhang, Y. (2009). The CoNLL-2009 shared task: Syntactic and semantic dependencies in multiple languages. In Proceedings of CoNLL 2009.
14. Hatori, J., Matsuzaki, T., Miyao, Y., and Tsujii, J. (2011). Incremental joint pos tagging and dependency parsing in chinese. In Proceedings of 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 1216-1224, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.
15. Huang, L. and Sagae, K. (2010). Dynamic programming for linear-time incremental parsing. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1077-1086, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics.
16. Johansson, R. and Nugues, P. (2008). Dependency-based semantic role labeling of PropBank. In EMNLP-2008.
17. Koo, T., Carreras, X., and Collins, M. (2008). Simple semi-supervised dependency parsing. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages 595-603, Columbus, Ohio. Association for Computational Linguistics.
18. Koo, T. and Collins, M. (2010). Efficient third-order dependency parsers. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1-11, Uppsala, Sweden. Association for Computational Linguistics.
19. Lafferty, J., McCallum, A., and Pereira, F. (2001). Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of ICML 2001, pages 282- 289.
20. Lee, J., Naradowsky, J., and Smith, D. A. (2011). A discriminative model for joint morphological disambiguation and dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 885-894, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
21. Li, Z., Zhang, M., Che, W., Liu, T., Chen, W., and Li, H. (2011). Joint models for chinese pos tagging and dependency parsing. In EMNLP 2011, pages 1180-1191.
22. Martins, A., Smith, N., Xing, E., Aguiar, P., and Figueiredo, M. (2010). Turbo parsers: Dependency parsing by approximate variational inference. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 34-44, Cambridge, MA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
23. McDonald, R., Crammer, K., and Pereira, F. (2005). Online large-margin training of dependency parsers. In Proceedings of ACL 2005, pages 91-98.
24. Petrov, S. and Klein, D. (2007). Improved inference for unlexicalized parsing. In Proceedings of NAACL 2007.
25. Ratnaparkhi, A. (1996). A maximum entropy model for part-of-speech tagging. In Proceedings of EMNLP 1996.
26. Rush, A. M., Sontag, D., Collins, M., and Jaakkola, T. (2010). On dual decomposition and linear programming relaxations for natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1-11.
27. Smith, D. A. and Eisner, J. (2008). Dependency parsing by belief propagation. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2008, pages 145-156.
28. Suzuki, J., Isozaki, H., Carreras, X., and Collins, M. (2009). An empirical study of semisupervised structured conditional models for dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 551-560, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.
29. Xue, N., Xia, F., Chiou, F.-D., and Palmer, M. (2005). The Penn Chinese Treebank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus. In Natural Language Engineering, volume 11, pages 207-238.
30. Zhang, Y. and Clark, S. (2008a). Joint word segmentation and POS tagging using a single perceptron. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages 888-896.
31. Zhang, Y. and Clark, S. (2008b). A tale of two parsers: Investigating and combining graphbased and transition-based dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 562-571, Honolulu, Hawaii. Association for Computational Linguistics.
32. Zhang, Y. and Clark, S. (2011). Syntactic processing using the generalized perceptron and beam search. Computational Linguistics, 37(1):105́lC151.
33. Zhang, Y. and Nivre, J. (2011). Transition-based dependency parsing with rich non-local features. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 188-193, Portland, Oregon, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.