Incremental Dependency Parsing

Transcription

1 Inrementl Dependeny Prsing Mihel Fell 9 June

2 Overview - Inrementl Dependeny Prsing - two lgorithms - evlution - enerl ritiism on present pprohes - possile improvements - ummry 2

3 Dependeny Prsing The mn loves ke. (entene) Det uj Oj The mn loves ke. (Dependeny rph) 3

4 Dependeny rph Leled, direted grph (W, A) - W: words in the sentene - A: dependeny reltion etween words 4

5 Dependeny rph Leled, direted grph (W, A) - W: words in the sentene - A: dependeny reltion etween words Well-formedness riteri: - onneted - yli - unique lel - single hed - projetive 5

6 Inrementl Dependeny Prsing Dependeny prsing - is roust nd performs well - omits phrsl nodes Wht out doing it inrementlly? 6

7 Inrementl Dependeny Prsing Dependeny prsing - is roust nd performs well - omits phrsl nodes Wht out doing it inrementlly? One possiility: Left-to-right ottom-up dependeny prsing 7

8 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing stk input dep. grph 8

9 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing hift: () stk input dep. grph 9

10 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing hift: () stk input dep. grph Left-Redue (LR): 10

11 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing hift: () stk input dep. grph Right-Redue (RR): Left-Redue (LR): 11

12 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing Exmple derivtion of 12

13 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing Exmple derivtion of (1) 13

14 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing Exmple derivtion of (1) (2) 14

15 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing Exmple derivtion of (1) (2) (3) LR 15

16 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing Exmple derivtion of (1) (2) (3) LR (4) - 16

17 Bottom-up dependeny prsing Exmple derivtion of (1) (2) (3) LR (4) (5) - RR - 17

18 Bottom-up dependeny prsing Dependeny grphs with 3 nodes: We hve derived (4). (2), (3) nd (5) n lso e derived. 18

19 Bottom-up dependeny prsing Dependeny grphs with 3 nodes: We hve derived (4). (2), (3) nd (5) n lso e derived. (1) nd (6), (7) n t e derived 19

20 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing Dependeny grphs with 3 nodes: We hve derived (4). (2), (3) nd (5) n lso e derived. (1) nd (6), (7) n t e derived (1): is omined vi Right-Redution hs hed ersed from stk 20

21 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing Dependeny grphs with 3 nodes: We hve derived (4). (2), (3) nd (5) n lso e derived. (1) nd (6), (7) n t e derived (1): is omined with vi Right-Redution hs hed ersed from stk (6), (7): no onneting r etween nd To onnet them, we needed to put onto the stk, too. (hene lose inrementlity) 21

22 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing Is there wy to prse (1) nd (6), (7) inrementlly? (6), (7): no!

23 Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing Is there wy to prse (1) nd (6), (7) inrementlly? (6), (7): no! (1): yes, red input from right to left inrementlity?

24 (1) n e proessed inrementlly Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing Is there wy to prse (1) nd (6), (7) inrementlly? (6), (7): no! (1): yes, red input from right to left inrementlity?

25 Inrementl Dependeny Prsing Bottom-up nd Top-down in Dependeny Prsing BU: D H x * D H x Dependent D is tthed to its hed H efore H is tthed to its hed 25

26 Inrementl Dependeny Prsing Bottom-up nd Top-down in Dependeny Prsing BU: D H x * D H x Dependent D is tthed to its hed H efore H is tthed to its hed TD: * H D x H D x Hed H is tthed to dependent D efore D is tthed to its dependent(s) 26

27 Inrementl Dependeny Prsing Bottom-up nd Top-down in Dependeny Prsing BU: D H x * D H x Dependent D is tthed to its hed H efore H is tthed to its hed TD: * H D x H D x Hed H is tthed to dependent D efore D is tthed to its dependent(s) Insight: We n proess left-dependents inrementlly vi BU proess right-dependents inrementlly vi TD prsing 27

28 Inrementl Dependeny Prsing Bottom-up nd Top-down in Dependeny Prsing BU: D H x * D H x Dependent D is tthed to its hed H efore H is tthed to its hed TD: * H D x H D x Hed H is tthed to dependent D efore D is tthed to its dependent(s) Insight: We n proess left-dependents inrementlly vi BU proess right-dependents inrementlly vi TD prsing Ar-Eger Dependeny Prsing 28

29 Ar-Eger Dependeny Prsing hift: () stk input dep. grph 29

30 Ar-Eger Dependeny Prsing hift: () stk input dep. grph Left-Ar (LA): 30

31 Ar-Eger Dependeny Prsing hift: () stk input dep. grph Right-Ar (RA): Left-Ar (LA): 31

32 Ar-Eger Dependeny Prsing hift: () stk input dep. grph Right-Ar (RA): Left-Ar (LA): Redue (R): 32

33 Bottom-up vs. Ar-Eger stk input dep. grph hift: ( BU ) hift: ( AE ) 33

34 Bottom-up vs. Ar-Eger stk input dep. grph hift: ( BU ) hift: ( AE ) eft-redue (LR): Left-Ar (LA): LR LA 34

35 Bottom-up vs. Ar-Eger hift: ( BU ) stk input dep. grph hift: ( AE ) eft-redue (LR): Left-Ar (LA): LR LA 35

36 Bottom-up vs. Ar-Eger hift: ( BU ) stk input dep. grph hift: ( AE ) eft-redue (LR): Left-Ar (LA): LR LA 36

37 Bottom-up vs. Ar-Eger Right-Redue (RR): Right-Ar (RA): RR RA 37

38 Bottom-up vs. Ar-Eger Right-Redue (RR): Right-Ar (RA): RR RA 38

39 Bottom-up vs. Ar-Eger Right-Redue (RR): Right-Ar (RA): RR RA R 39

40 Bottom-up vs. Ar-Eger Right-Redue (RR): Right-Ar (RA): RR RA R Ar-Eger Dependeny Prsing n fully simulte Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing! 40

41 Bottom-up vs. Ar-Eger Right-Redue (RR): Right-Ar (RA): RR RA R Ar-Eger Dependeny Prsing n fully simulte Bottom-up Dependeny Prsing We n lso derive new grphs with AE! (see next slide) 41

42 Ar-Eger Dependeny Prsing (1) is not derivle with BU prsing, ut it is with AE: 42

43 Ar-Eger Dependeny Prsing (1) is not derivle with BU prsing, ut it is with AE: 43

44 Ar-Eger Dependeny Prsing (1) is not derivle with BU prsing, ut it is with AE: RA 44

45 Ar-Eger Dependeny Prsing (1) is not derivle with BU prsing, ut it is with AE: RA RA - 45

46 Ar-Eger Prsing: Evlution - smll wedish treenk (5685 sentenes) - evluting inrementlity: numer of onneted omponents on stk during prse ( 1 mens stritly inrementl) 46

47 Ar-Eger Prsing: Evlution - smll wedish treenk (5685 sentenes) - evluting inrementlity: numer of onneted omponents on stk during prse ( 1 mens stritly inrementl) stritly inrementl 47

48 Ar-Eger Prsing: Evlution - smll wedish treenk (5685 sentenes) - evluting inrementlity: numer of onneted omponents on stk during prse ( 1 mens stritly inrementl) stritly inrementl mildly inrementl 48

49 Intermedite ummry - Dependeny prsing works well in prtie - Inrementl dependeny prsing possile in mny ses - Improving the prsing tehnique is essentil - Ar-Eger performs etter thn Bottom-up dep. prsing - Well-formed prsing results show high inrementlity 49

50 Intermedite ummry - Dependeny prsing works well in prtie - Inrementl dependeny prsing possile in mny ses - Improving the prsing tehnique is essentil - Ar-Eger performs etter thn Bottom-up dep. prsing - Well-formed prsing results show high inrementlity - ut, wht out those strutures (6) nd (7) we ouldn t prse inrementlly? 50

51 Roust Inrementlity 51

52 Roust Inrementlity Drwks of storing omponents on stk - psyholinguisti plusiility: why not integrte diretly? 52

53 Roust Inrementlity Drwks of storing omponents on stk - psyholinguisti plusiility: why not integrte diretly? - prtility: dely of output s stored omponents re not prt of it 53

54 Roust Inrementlity - Argument Dependeny Model - dependenies etween ver s rguments - proto roles (proto-gent, proto-ptient) - e.g.: noun(nimte & nomintive) noun(proto-gent) dependeny rel. UBJ governs the noun (phrse) unless ontrditory onstrints override this 54

55 Roust Inrementlity NONPEC node - onnet strutures to NONPEC node while ver hs not een found - NONPEC n hnge into ny other node nd even divide into severl nodes - My even e in the resulting grph

56 Roust Inrementlity: Evlution - orpus with - uniform sentene pttern - ver-finl suluses 97.3% urte dependeny grphs, ut 56

57 ummry - Inrementl Dependeny Prsing is possile nd effiient - Ver-end strutures pose prolems to strit inrementlity - Pseudo-strit inrementlity with strt NONPEC node suggested - Integrtes dep. reltions on-the-fly - still seems lot like renmed stk to me (whih n e output) too vgue 57

58 Thnk you! 58

59 Referenes Jokim Nivre (2004). Inrementlity in Deterministi Dependeny Prsing Wolfgng Menzel (2009). Towrds rdilly inrementl prsing of nturl lnguge 59