dependency parsing as head selection
play

Dependency Parsing as Head Selection Xingxing Zhang , Jianpeng Cheng, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dependency Parsing as Head Selection Xingxing Zhang , Jianpeng Cheng, Mirella Lapata Institute for Language, Cognition and Computation University of Edinburgh x.zhang@ed.ac.uk April 6, 2017 Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency


  1. Dependency Parsing as Head Selection Xingxing Zhang , Jianpeng Cheng, Mirella Lapata Institute for Language, Cognition and Computation University of Edinburgh x.zhang@ed.ac.uk April 6, 2017 Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 1 / 18

  2. Dependency Parsing Dependency Parsing is the task of transforming a sentence S = ( root , w 1 , w 2 , . . . , w N ) into a directed tree originating out of root . Parsing Algorithms Transition-based Parsing Graph-based Parsing Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 2 / 18

  3. Dependency Parsing Dependency Parsing is the task of transforming a sentence S = ( root , w 1 , w 2 , . . . , w N ) into a directed tree originating out of root . Parsing Algorithms Transition-based Parsing Graph-based Parsing Our parser is neither Transition-based nor Graph-based (during training) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 2 / 18

  4. Transition-based Parsing Data Structure Buffer, Stack, Arc Set Parsing: Choose an action from SHIFT REDUCE-Left REDUCE-Right Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 3 / 18

  5. Graph-based Parsing A Sentence → A Directed Complete Graph (Graphs from Kubler et al., 2009) Parsing: Finding Maximum Spanning Tree Chu-Liu-Edmond algorithm (Chu and Liu, 1965) Eisner algorithm (Eisner 1996) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 4 / 18

  6. Recent Advances Mostly replacing discrete features with Neural Network features. Transition-based Parsers Feed-Forward NN features (Chen and Manning, 2014) Bi-LSTM features (Kiperwasser and Goldberg, 2016) Stack LSTM: Buffer, Stack and Action Sequences modeled by Stack-LSTMs (Dyer et al., 2015) Graph-based Parsers Tensor Decomposition features (Lei et al., 2014) Feed-Forward NN features (Pei et al., 2015) Bi-LSTM features (Kiperwasser and Goldberg, 2016) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 5 / 18

  7. Do we need a transition system or graph algorithm? root kids love candy Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 6 / 18

  8. Do we need a transition system or graph algorithm? root kids love candy An important fact: Every word has only one head! Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 6 / 18

  9. Do we need a transition system or graph algorithm? root kids love candy An important fact: Every word has only one head! Why not just learn to select the head? Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 6 / 18

  10. Dependency Parsing as Head Selection DeNSe : De pendency N eural Se lection Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 7 / 18

  11. Dependency Parsing as Head Selection DeNSe : De pendency N eural Se lection Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 7 / 18

  12. Dependency Parsing as Head Selection DeNSe : De pendency N eural Se lection Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 7 / 18

  13. Dependency Parsing as Head Selection DeNSe : De pendency N eural Se lection exp( MLP ( a root , a love )) P head ( root | love , S ) = � 3 k =0 exp( MLP ( a k , a love )) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 7 / 18

  14. Dependency Parsing as Head Selection DeNSe : De pendency N eural Se lection exp( MLP ( a root , a love )) P head ( root | love , S ) = � 3 k =0 exp( MLP ( a k , a love )) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 7 / 18

  15. Decoding Greedy Decoding: The output may not be a (projective) tree! Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 8 / 18

  16. Decoding Greedy Decoding: The output may not be a (projective) tree! Greedy Decoding Dataset #Sent (Dev) Tree Proj PTB (English) 1,700 95.1 86.6 CTB (Chinese) 803 87.0 73.1 Czech 374 87.7 65.5 German 367 96.7 67.3 Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 8 / 18

  17. Decoding Greedy Decoding: The output may not be a (projective) tree! Greedy Decoding Dataset #Sent (Dev) Tree Proj PTB (English) 1,700 95.1 86.6 CTB (Chinese) 803 87.0 73.1 Czech 374 87.7 65.5 German 367 96.7 67.3 Decoding with a Maximum Spanning Tree Algorithm (relatively rare) Projective Parsing: Eisner Algorithm Non-projective Parsing: Chu-Liu-Edmond Algorithm Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 8 / 18

  18. Labelled Parser A two-layer Rectifier Network (Glorot et al., 2011) Dependent Word: Bi-LSTM Feature Word Embedding PoS Embedding Head Word: Bi-LSTM Feature Word Embedding PoS Embedding Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 9 / 18

  19. Experiments Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 10 / 18

  20. Projective Parsing Results (PTB; English) NN (Chen & Manning, 2014); S-LSTM (Dyer et al., 2015); Bi-LSTM (Kiperwasser & Goldberg, 2016); SynNet (Andor et al. 2016) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 11 / 18

  21. Projective Parsing Results (PTB; English) NN (Chen & Manning, 2014); S-LSTM (Dyer et al., 2015); Bi-LSTM (Kiperwasser & Goldberg, 2016); SynNet (Andor et al. 2016) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 11 / 18

  22. Projective Parsing Results (PTB; English) NN (Chen & Manning, 2014); S-LSTM (Dyer et al., 2015); Bi-LSTM (Kiperwasser & Goldberg, 2016); SynNet (Andor et al. 2016) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 11 / 18

  23. Projective Parsing Results (PTB; Chinese) NN (Chen & Manning, 2014); S-LSTM (Dyer et al., 2015); Bi-LSTM (Kiperwasser & Goldberg, 2016); 3rd-cubic (Zhang & McDonald 2014) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 12 / 18

  24. Non-projective Parsing Results (German) MST-1st, MST-2nd (McDonald et al., 2005) Turbo-1st, Turbo-3rd (Martins et al., 2013) RBG-1st RBG-3rd (Martins et al. 2013) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 13 / 18

  25. Non-projective Parsing Results (German) MST-1st, MST-2nd (McDonald et al., 2005) Turbo-1st, Turbo-3rd (Martins et al., 2013) RBG-1st RBG-3rd (Martins et al. 2013) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 13 / 18

  26. Non-projective Parsing Results (Czech) MST-1st, MST-2nd ((McDonald et al., 2005) Turbo-1st, Turbo-3rd (Martins et al., 2013) RBG-1st RBG-3rd (Martins et al. 2013) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 14 / 18

  27. Non-projective Parsing Results (Czech) MST-1st, MST-2nd ((McDonald et al., 2005) Turbo-1st, Turbo-3rd (Martins et al., 2013) RBG-1st RBG-3rd (Martins et al. 2013) Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 14 / 18

  28. Unlabeled Exact Match PTB CTB Parser Dev Test Dev Test C&M14 43.35 40.93 32.75 32.20 Dyer15 51.94 50.70 39.72 37.23 DeNSe 51.24 49.34 34.74 33.66 DeNSe +E 36.49 35.13 52.47 50.79 Table: UEM results on PTB and CTB. Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 15 / 18

  29. UAS v.s. Length 96 95 94 UAS (%) 93 92 91 C&M14 DeNSe+E 90 Dyer15 89 11 14 17 20 23 26 28 32 38 118 PTB sentence length Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 16 / 18

  30. UAS v.s. Length 93 92 91 90 89 88 UAS (%) 87 86 85 84 83 C&M14 DeNSe+E 82 Dyer15 81 80 5 9 14 18 22 26 30 37 49 116 PTB sentence length CTB CTB Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 16 / 18

  31. Conclusions We propose a dependency parser as greedily selecting the head of each word in sentence. Combine the greedy model with a MST algorithm can further increase the performance Code available: https://github.com/XingxingZhang/dense parser Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 17 / 18

  32. Thanks Q & A Zhang et al. (Univ. of Edinburgh) DeNSe : Dependency Neural Selection April 6, 2017 18 / 18

Recommend


More recommend