Concavity and initialization for unsupervised dependency parsing

NAACL HLT 2012 - 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 577-581

  Gimpel, Kevin ^a   Smith, Noah A ^a  

^a Carnegie Mellon University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEPENDENCY GRAMMAR; DEPENDENCY MODEL; GRAMMAR INDUCTION; IBM MODELS; INITIALIZERS; LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE; LOG-LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; PROPERTY; UNSUPERVISED DEPENDENCY PARSING; WORD ALIGNMENT;

UNSUPERVISED LEARNING;

EID: 84903468764     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. T. Berg-Kirkpatrick, A. Bouchard-Côté, J. DeNero, and D. Klein. 2010. Painless unsupervised learning with features. In Proc. of NAACL.
2. P. Blunsom and T. Cohn. 2010. Unsupervised induction of tree substitution grammars for dependency parsing. In Proc. of EMNLP.
3. S. Brody. 2010. It depends on the translation: Unsupervised dependency parsing via word alignment. In Proc. of EMNLP.
4. P. F. Brown, S. A. Della Pietra, V. J. Della Pietra, and R. L. Mercer. 1993. The mathematics of statistical machine translation: Parameter estimation. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):263-311.
5. S. Buchholz and E. Marsi. 2006. CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing. In Proc. of CoNLL.
6. S. Cohen and N. A. Smith. 2009. Shared logistic normal distributions for soft parameter tying in unsupervised grammar induction. In Proc. of NAACL.
7. S. Cohen. 2011. Computational Learning of Probabilistic Grammars in the Unsupervised Setting. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.
8. J. Gillenwater, K. Ganchev, J. Graça, F. Pereira, , and B. Taskar. 2010. Posterior sparsity in unsupervised dependency parsing. Journal of Machine Learning Research.
9. Y. Goldberg, M. Adler, and M. Elhadad. 2008. EM can find pretty good HMM POS-taggers (when given a good start). In Proc. of ACL.
10. W. Headden III, M. Johnson, and D. McClosky. 2009. Improving unsupervised dependency parsing with richer contexts and smoothing. In Proc. of NAACL.
11. D. Klein and C. D. Manning. 2004. Corpus-based induction of syntactic structure: Models of dependency and constituency. In Proc. of ACL.
12. K. Lari and S. J. Young. 1990. The estimation of stochastic context-free grammars using the inside-outside algorithm. Computer Speech and Language, 4:35-56.
13. D. Mareček and Z. Žabokrtský. 2011. Gibbs sampling with treeness constraint in unsupervised dependency parsing. In Proc. of Workshop on Robust Unsupervised and Semisupervised Methods in Natural Language Processing.
14. T. Naseem, H. Chen, R. Barzilay, and M. Johnson. 2010. Using universal linguistic knowledge to guide grammar induction. In Proc. of EMNLP.
15. J. Nivre, J. Hall, S. Kübler, R. McDonald, J. Nilsson, S. Riedel, and D. Yuret. 2007. The CoNLL 2007 shared task on dependency parsing. In Proc. of CoNLL.
16. S. Petrov, D. Das, and R. McDonald. 2012. A universal part-of-speech tagset. In Proc. of LREC.
17. V. I. Spitkovsky, H. Alshawi, and D. Jurafsky. 2010. From Baby Steps to Leapfrog: How "Less is More" in unsupervised dependency parsing. In Proc. of NAACL-HLT.
18. V. I. Spitkovsky, H. Alshawi, A. X. Chang, and D. Jurafsky. 2011a. Unsupervised dependency parsing without gold part-of-speech tags. In Proc. of EMNLP.
19. V. I. Spitkovsky, H. Alshawi, and D. Jurafsky. 2011b. Punctuation: Making a point in unsupervised dependency parsing. In Proc. of CoNLL.
20. K. Toutanova and M. Galley. 2011. Why initialization matters for IBM Model 1: Multiple optima and nonstrict convexity. In Proc. of ACL.