Advertisement

Genetic algorithms for structural editing

  • Richard Myers
  • Edwin R. Hancock
Structural Matching and Grammatical Inference
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1451)

Abstract

This paper describes the use of discrete graphical editing operations to dynamically fit hierarchical structural models to input data. We use the tree adjoining grammar developed by Joshi [l] as a prototypical structural model, and realise the editing process using a genetic algorithm. The novelty of our approach lies firstly in the use of the edit distance between the ordered frontier nodes of a tree and a set of dictionaries of legal labels derived from the input as a cost function. Secondly, we apply genetic algorithms to tree adjoining grammars with the introduction of a new editing operation. We demonstrate the utility of the method on a simple natural language processing problem.

Keywords

Genetic Algorithm Edit Distance Parse Tree Editing Operation Labelling Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    A. K. Joshi. Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? In L. Karttunen D. R. Dowty and A. M. Zwicky, editors, Natural, Language Parsing. Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Sanfeliu and K. S. Fu. A distance measure between attributed relational graphs for pattern recognition. IEEE SMC, 13:353–362, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. A. Eshera and K. S. Fu. A graph distance measure for image analysis. IEEE SMC, 14:398–407, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. Shasha and K. Zhang. Simple fast algorithms for the editing distance between trees and related problems. SIAM Journal of Computing, 18:1245–1262, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Zhang. A constrained edit distance between unordered labeled trees. Algorithmica, 15:205–222, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. B. Skillicorn. A parallel tree difference algorithm. Information Processing Letters, 60:231–235, 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richard C. Wilson Andrew. D. J. Cross and Edwin R. Hancock. Inexact graph matching using genetic search. Pattern Recognition, 30:953–970, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. C. Wilson and E. R. Hancock. Hierarchical discrete relaxation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1121:120–129, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Geman E. Bienenstock and D. Potter. Compositionality, MDL priors, and object recognition. In NIPS 96, pages 838–844, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. A. Wagner and M. J. Fischer. The string-to-string correction problem. Journal of the ACM, 21:168–173, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Becker et al. A lexicalised tree adjoining grammar for english. Technical report, University of Pennsylvania, 1995. IRCS Report 95-03.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Allen. Natural Language Understanding. Benjamin/Cummings, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. H. Holland. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. MIT Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Rudolph. Convergence analysis of canonical genetic algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 5:96–101, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. B. Fogel. An introduction to simulated evolutionary optimisation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 5:3–14, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Srinivas and L. M. Patnaik. Genetic algorithms: A survey. IEEE Computer, 27:17–26, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. A. Huffman. Impossible objects as nonsense sentences. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence, volume 6, pages 295–323. Edinburgh University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Myers and E. R. Hancock. Genetic algorithm parameters for line labelling. Pattern Recognition Letters, 18:1363–1371, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. M. Haralick and L. G. Shapiro. The consistent labelling problem: Parts 1 and 2. IEEE PAMI, 1 (I) and 2 (11):173–184 (I) and 193-203 (II), 1979 (I) and 1981 (II).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    20.R. Myers and E. R. Hancock. Genetic algorithms for ambiguous labelling problems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (EMMCVPR 97), 1223:345–360, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. R. Koza. Genetic Programming. MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. J. Grefenstette. Optimisation of control parameters for genetic algorithms. IEEE SMC, 16:122–128, 1986.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. J. Eshelman J. D. Schaffer, R. A. Caruna and R. Das. A study of control parameters affecting online performance of genetic algorithms for function optimisation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 51–60, 1989.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. A. DeJong and W. M. Spears. An analysis of the interacting rôles of population size and crossover in genetic algorithms. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Myers
    • 1
  • Edwin R. Hancock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations