Skip to main content

Training with Meta-features

  • Chapter
  • 360 Accesses

Abstract

In the previous chapters, we have described the approaches of using the information of bilexical dependencies and subtrees. The approaches make use of bi- and tri-gram lexical subtree structures. It can be extended further. The base features defined over surface words, part-of-speech tags represent more complex tree structures than bilexical dependencies and lexical subtrees.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We ensure that the text used for building the meta-features did not include the sentences of the Penn Treebank.

  2. 2.

    We exclude the sentences of the CTB data from the Gigaword data.

  3. 3.

    We also test the settings of dividing WM into two subtypes: W and M. The results show that both subtypes provide positive results. To simplify, we merge W and M into one category, WM.

References

  • Ando, R., & Zhang, T. (2005). A high-performance semi-supervised learning method for text chunking. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1(43), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), Beijing (pp. 89–97). Coling 2010 Organizing Committee. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C10-1011.

  • Carreras, X. (2007). Experiments with a higher-order projective dependency parser. In Proceedings of the CoNLL shared task session of EMNLP-CoNLL 2007, Prague (pp. 957–961). Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charniak, E., Blaheta, D., Ge, N., Hall, K., Hale, J., & Johnson, M. (2000). BLLIP 1987–89 WSJ Corpus release 1. LDC2000T43. Linguistic Data Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Kazama, J., Uchimoto, K., & Torisawa, K. (2009). Improving dependency parsing with subtrees from auto-parsed data. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2009, Singapore (pp. 570–579).

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Zhang, M., & Li, H. (2012). Utilizing dependency language models for graph-based dependency parsing models. In Proceedings of ACL 2012, Jeju.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crammer, K., & Singer, Y. (2003). Ultraconservative online algorithms for multiclass problems. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 951–991. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jmlr.2003.3.4-5.951.

  • Duan, X., Zhao, J., & Xu, B. (2007). Probabilistic models for action-based chinese dependency parsing. In Proceedings of ECML/ECPPKDD, Warsaw.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, J. (1996). Three new probabilistic models for dependency parsing: An exploration. In Proceedings of COLING1996, Copenhagen (pp. 340–345).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatori, J., Matsuzaki, T., Miyao, Y., & Tsujii, J. (2011). Incremental joint POS tagging and dependency parsing in Chinese. In Proceedings of 5th international joint conference on natural language processing, Chiang Mai (pp. 1216–1224). Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/I11-1136.

  • Huang, C. R. (2009). Tagged Chinese gigaword version 2.0. LDC2009T14. Linguistic Data Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koo, T., Carreras, X., & Collins, M. (2008). Simple semi-supervised dependency parsing. In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, Columbus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koo, T., & Collins, M. (2010). Efficient third-order dependency parsers. In Proceedings of ACL 2010, Uppsala (pp. 1–11). Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruengkrai, C., Uchimoto, K., Kazama, J., Wang, Y., Torisawa, K., & Isahara, H. (2009). An error-driven word-character hybrid model for joint Chinese word segmentation and POS tagging. In Proceedings of ACL-IJCNLP2009, Suntec (pp. 513–521). Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Z., Zhang, M., Che, W., & Liu, T. (2012). A separately passive-aggressive training algorithm for joint POS tagging and dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 24rd international conference on computational linguistics (Coling 2012), Mumbai. Coling 2012 Organizing Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Z., Zhang, M., Che, W., Liu, T., Chen, W., & Li, H. (2011). Joint models for Chinese POS tagging and dependency parsing. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2011, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M.A. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguisticss, 19(2), 313–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R., Crammer, K., & Pereira, F. (2005). Online large-margin training of dependency parsers. In Proceedings of ACL 2005, Ann Arbor (pp. 91–98). Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R., & Pereira, F. (2006). Online learning of approximate dependency parsing algorithms. In Proceedings of EACL 2006, Trento (pp. 81–88).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratnaparkhi, A. (1996). A maximum entropy model for part-of-speech tagging. In Proceedings of EMNLP 1996, Copenhagen (pp. 133–142).

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, J., Isozaki, H., Carreras, X., & Collins, M. (2009). An empirical study of semi-supervised structured conditional models for dependency parsing. In Proceedings of EMNLP2009, Singapore (pp. 551–560). Association for Computational Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, J., Isozaki, H., & Nagata, M. (2011). Learning condensed feature representations from large unsupervised data sets for supervised learning. In Proceedings of ACL2011, Portland (pp. 636–641). Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P11-2112.

  • Xue, N., Xia, F., dong Chiou, F., & Palmer, M. (2005). Building a large annotated Chinese corpus: The Penn Chinese treebank. Journal of Natural Language Engineering, 11(2), 207–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamada, H., & Matsumoto, Y. (2003). Statistical dependency analysis with support vector machines. In Proceedings of IWPT 2003, Nancy (pp. 195–206).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Clark, S. (2008). A tale of two parsers: Investigating and combining graph-based and transition-based dependency parsing. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2008, Honolulu (pp. 562–571).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Nivre, J. (2011). Transition-based dependency parsing with rich non-local features. In Proceedings of ACL-HLT2011, Portland (pp. 188–193). Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P11-2033.

  • Zhou, G., Zhao, J., Liu, K., & Cai, L. (2011). Exploiting web-derived selectional preference to improve statistical dependency parsing. In Proceedings of ACL-HLT2011, Portland (pp. 1556–1565). Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P11-1156.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chen, W., Zhang, M. (2015). Training with Meta-features. In: Semi-Supervised Dependency Parsing. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-552-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics