parsing with dynamic continuized ccg
play

Parsing with Dynamic Continuized CCG Michael White, a Simon Charlow, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 05, 2022 •392 likes •1.17k views

Parsing with Dynamic Continuized CCG Michael White, a Simon Charlow, b Jordan Needle, a Dylan Bumford c 46 September 2017, TAG+13 a Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University b Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University c Department

  1. Parsing with Dynamic Continuized CCG Michael White, a Simon Charlow, b Jordan Needle, a Dylan Bumford c 4–6 September 2017, TAG+13 a Department of Linguistics, The Ohio State University b Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University c Department of Linguistics, UCLA 1

  2. Joint work with Simon Jordan Dylan Charlow Needle Bumford 2

  3. Introduction

  4. A breakthrough in semantic theory Indefinites not bothered by scope islands Example • if < a relative of mine dies > , I’ll inherit a fortune ( ∃ > if ) 3

  5. A breakthrough in semantic theory Indefinites not bothered by scope islands Example • if < a relative of mine dies > , I’ll inherit a fortune ( ∃ > if ) i.e., ∃ x . relative ( x , me ) ∧ [ dies ( x ) → fortune ( me )] 3

  6. A breakthrough in semantic theory Indefinites not bothered by scope islands Example • if < a relative of mine dies > , I’ll inherit a fortune ( ∃ > if ) i.e., ∃ x . relative ( x , me ) ∧ [ dies ( x ) → fortune ( me )] • if < every relative of mine dies > , I’ll . . . a fortune (* ∀ > if ) 3

  7. A breakthrough in semantic theory Indefinites not bothered by scope islands Example • if < a relative of mine dies > , I’ll inherit a fortune ( ∃ > if ) i.e., ∃ x . relative ( x , me ) ∧ [ dies ( x ) → fortune ( me )] • if < every relative of mine dies > , I’ll . . . a fortune (* ∀ > if ) i.e., * ∀ x . relative ( x , me ) → [ dies ( x ) → fortune ( me )] 3

  8. A breakthrough in semantic theory Indefinites not bothered by scope islands Example • if < a relative of mine dies > , I’ll inherit a fortune ( ∃ > if ) i.e., ∃ x . relative ( x , me ) ∧ [ dies ( x ) → fortune ( me )] • if < every relative of mine dies > , I’ll . . . a fortune (* ∀ > if ) i.e., * ∀ x . relative ( x , me ) → [ dies ( x ) → fortune ( me )] ⇒ Explanation in terms of indefinites’ discourse function a long expected result 3

  9. A breakthrough in semantic theory Indefinites not bothered by scope islands Example • if < a relative of mine dies > , I’ll inherit a fortune ( ∃ > if ) i.e., ∃ x . relative ( x , me ) ∧ [ dies ( x ) → fortune ( me )] • if < every relative of mine dies > , I’ll . . . a fortune (* ∀ > if ) i.e., * ∀ x . relative ( x , me ) → [ dies ( x ) → fortune ( me )] ⇒ Explanation in terms of indefinites’ discourse function a long expected result — arguably, Charlow (2014) first to show this satisfactorily! 3

  10. A breakthrough in semantic theory Indefinites not bothered by scope islands Example • if < a relative of mine dies > , I’ll inherit a fortune ( ∃ > if ) i.e., ∃ x . relative ( x , me ) ∧ [ dies ( x ) → fortune ( me )] • if < every relative of mine dies > , I’ll . . . a fortune (* ∀ > if ) i.e., * ∀ x . relative ( x , me ) → [ dies ( x ) → fortune ( me )] ⇒ Explanation in terms of indefinites’ discourse function a long expected result — arguably, Charlow (2014) first to show this satisfactorily! ⇒ Can Charlow’s approach be made to work computationally? 3

  11. Implementing DyC 3 G Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG; Steedman 2000, 2012) • Constrained grammar formalism with linguistically motivated treatment of long-distance dependencies and coordination • Basis for fast & accurate parsers (Hockenmaier & Steedman 2007, Clark & Curran 2007, Lee et al. 2016, . . . ) 4

  12. Implementing DyC 3 G Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG; Steedman 2000, 2012) • Constrained grammar formalism with linguistically motivated treatment of long-distance dependencies and coordination • Basis for fast & accurate parsers (Hockenmaier & Steedman 2007, Clark & Curran 2007, Lee et al. 2016, . . . ) Continuized CCG (Barker & Shan 2002, 2008, 2015) • Quantifiers are functions on their own continuations • Order-sensitive phenomena as linguistic side effects 4

  13. Implementing DyC 3 G Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG; Steedman 2000, 2012) • Constrained grammar formalism with linguistically motivated treatment of long-distance dependencies and coordination • Basis for fast & accurate parsers (Hockenmaier & Steedman 2007, Clark & Curran 2007, Lee et al. 2016, . . . ) Continuized CCG (Barker & Shan 2002, 2008, 2015) • Quantifiers are functions on their own continuations • Order-sensitive phenomena as linguistic side effects Dynamic Continuized CCG (Charlow 2014) • Explains exceptional scope of indefinites by treating them as side effects in continuized grammars 4

  14. Why should we care about the scope of indefinites? As Steedman (2012) observes, computationally implemented approaches to scope taking from Cooper storage (Cooper 1983) to underspecification (e.g. Copestake et al. 2005) and more have not distinguished indefinites from true quantifiers 5

  15. Why should we care about the scope of indefinites? As Steedman (2012) observes, computationally implemented approaches to scope taking from Cooper storage (Cooper 1983) to underspecification (e.g. Copestake et al. 2005) and more have not distinguished indefinites from true quantifiers — typically resulting in vast overgeneration 5

  16. Why should we care about the scope of indefinites? As Steedman (2012) observes, computationally implemented approaches to scope taking from Cooper storage (Cooper 1983) to underspecification (e.g. Copestake et al. 2005) and more have not distinguished indefinites from true quantifiers — typically resulting in vast overgeneration While the scope possibilities for indefinites appear to be unconstrained in general, true quantifiers appear to have a much more limited distribution subject to constraints imposed by scope islands 5

  17. Why should we care about the scope of indefinites? As Steedman (2012) observes, computationally implemented approaches to scope taking from Cooper storage (Cooper 1983) to underspecification (e.g. Copestake et al. 2005) and more have not distinguished indefinites from true quantifiers — typically resulting in vast overgeneration While the scope possibilities for indefinites appear to be unconstrained in general, true quantifiers appear to have a much more limited distribution subject to constraints imposed by scope islands — which is not accounted for even in implementations of DRT (Bos 2003) 5

  18. Ok — but what about Steedman’s (2012) analysis? Steedman (2012) accounts for indefinites’ exceptional scope taking by treating them as underspecified Skolem terms in a non-standard static semantics, rather than deriving this behavior from their discourse function 6

  19. Ok — but what about Steedman’s (2012) analysis? Steedman (2012) accounts for indefinites’ exceptional scope taking by treating them as underspecified Skolem terms in a non-standard static semantics, rather than deriving this behavior from their discourse function . . . while true quantifiers are restricted by CCG’s surface compositional combinatorics 6

  20. Ok — but what about Steedman’s (2012) analysis? Steedman (2012) accounts for indefinites’ exceptional scope taking by treating them as underspecified Skolem terms in a non-standard static semantics, rather than deriving this behavior from their discourse function . . . while true quantifiers are restricted by CCG’s surface compositional combinatorics — but does this suffice empirically? 6

  21. Potential issues for Steedman’s CCG Steedman’s CCG can’t account for quantifiers taking scope from medial positions (Barker & Shan, 2015) 7

  22. Potential issues for Steedman’s CCG Steedman’s CCG can’t account for quantifiers taking scope from medial positions (Barker & Shan, 2015) Linear order constraints on where negative polarity items may appear also apparently an issue 7

  23. Potential issues for Steedman’s CCG Steedman’s CCG can’t account for quantifiers taking scope from medial positions (Barker & Shan, 2015) Linear order constraints on where negative polarity items may appear also apparently an issue ⇒ Barker & Shan’s continuized grammars generalize Hendrik’s (1993) approach to scope taking while also enabling order-sensitive analyses 7

  24. This paper’s contribution Open source reference implementation 1 of a shift-reduce parser that 1. extends Barker and Shan (2014) to only invoke Charlow’s (2014) monadic lifting and lowering where necessary 2. integrates Steedman’s (2000) CCG for deriving basic predicate-argument structure and enriches it with a practical method of lexicalizing scope island constraints (Barker & Shan 2006) 3. takes advantage of the resulting scope islands in defining novel normal form constraints for efficient parsing 1 https://github.com/mwhite14850/dyc3g 8

  25. This paper’s contribution Open source reference implementation 1 of a shift-reduce parser that 1. extends Barker and Shan (2014) to only invoke Charlow’s (2014) monadic lifting and lowering where necessary 2. integrates Steedman’s (2000) CCG for deriving basic predicate-argument structure and enriches it with a practical method of lexicalizing scope island constraints (Barker & Shan 2006) 3. takes advantage of the resulting scope islands in defining novel normal form constraints for efficient parsing 1 https://github.com/mwhite14850/dyc3g 8

  26. Continuized CCG

Recommend

Linear Time Constituency Parsing with RNNs and Dynamic Programming Juneki Hong 1 Liang Huang 1,2 1

Linear Time Constituency Parsing with RNNs and Dynamic Programming Juneki Hong 1 Liang Huang 1,2 1

Linear Time Constituency Parsing with RNNs and Dynamic Programming Juneki Hong 1 Liang Huang 1,2 1 Oregon State University 2 Baidu Research Silicon Valley AI Lab Span Parsing is SOTA in Constituency Parsing Cross+Huang 2016 introduced Span

691 views • 53 slides
Dynamic Feature Selection for Dependency Parsing He He, Hal Daum III and Jason Eisner EMNLP

Dynamic Feature Selection for Dependency Parsing He He, Hal Daum III and Jason Eisner EMNLP

Dynamic Feature Selection for Dependency Parsing He He, Hal Daum III and Jason Eisner EMNLP 2013, Seattle Structured Prediction in NLP Part-of-Speech Tagging Parsing N N V Det N

1.59k views • 102 slides
TAG, Dynamic Programming, and the Perceptron for Efficent, Feature-Rich Parsing Xavier Carreras,

TAG, Dynamic Programming, and the Perceptron for Efficent, Feature-Rich Parsing Xavier Carreras,

TAG, Dynamic Programming, and the Perceptron for Efficent, Feature-Rich Parsing Xavier Carreras, Michael Collins and Terry Koo MIT CSAIL Discriminative Models for Parsing Structured Prediction methods like CRF or Perceptron train linear models

403 views • 27 slides
CKY Parsing Ling 571 Deep Processing Techniques for NLP January 12, 2011 Roadmap

CKY Parsing Ling 571 Deep Processing Techniques for NLP January 12, 2011 Roadmap

CKY Parsing Ling 571 Deep Processing Techniques for NLP January 12, 2011 Roadmap Motivation: Parsing (In) efficiency Dynamic Programming Cocke-Kasami-Younger Parsing Algorithm Chomsky Normal Form Conversion

689 views • 42 slides
CSC 4181 Compiler Construction Parsing 1 1 Outline Top-down v.s. Bottom-up Top-down parsing

CSC 4181 Compiler Construction Parsing 1 1 Outline Top-down v.s. Bottom-up Top-down parsing

CSC 4181 Compiler Construction Parsing 1 1 Outline Top-down v.s. Bottom-up Top-down parsing Bottom-up parsing Recursive-descent Shift-reduce parsers parsing LR(0) parsing LL(1) parsing LR(0) items LL(1) parsing

429 views • 29 slides
Policy Gradient as a Proxy for Dynamic Oracles in Constituency Parsing Daniel Fried and Dan Klein

Policy Gradient as a Proxy for Dynamic Oracles in Constituency Parsing Daniel Fried and Dan Klein

Policy Gradient as a Proxy for Dynamic Oracles in Constituency Parsing Daniel Fried and Dan Klein Parsing by Local Decisions S VP NP NP nap . a The cat took (S (NP The cat ) (VP = log ; ) =

590 views • 18 slides
Introduction to Bottom-Up Parsing Shift-reduce parsing The LR parsing algorithm

Introduction to Bottom-Up Parsing Shift-reduce parsing The LR parsing algorithm

Outline Review LL parsing Introduction to Bottom-Up Parsing Shift-reduce parsing The LR parsing algorithm Constructing LR parsing tables 2 Top-Down Parsing: Review Top-Down Parsing: Review Top-down parsing expands a

471 views • 13 slides
Dynamic Programming for Linear-Time Incremental Parsing Liang Huang Information Sciences

Dynamic Programming for Linear-Time Incremental Parsing Liang Huang Information Sciences

Dynamic Programming for Linear-Time Incremental Parsing Liang Huang Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California (Joint work with Kenji Sagae, USC/ICT) JHU CLSP Seminar September 14, 2010 Remembering Fred Jelinek

1.21k views • 88 slides
Parsing with Dynamic Programming Graham Neubig Site https://phontron.com/class/nn4nlp2017/ Two

Parsing with Dynamic Programming Graham Neubig Site https://phontron.com/class/nn4nlp2017/ Two

CS11-747 Neural Networks for NLP Parsing with Dynamic Programming Graham Neubig Site https://phontron.com/class/nn4nlp2017/ Two Types of Linguistic Structure Dependency: focus on relations between words ROOT I saw a girl with a

396 views • 37 slides
Parsing with Dynamic Programming Graham Neubig Site https://phontron.com/class/nn4nlp2020/ Two

Parsing with Dynamic Programming Graham Neubig Site https://phontron.com/class/nn4nlp2020/ Two

CS11-747 Neural Networks for NLP Parsing with Dynamic Programming Graham Neubig Site https://phontron.com/class/nn4nlp2020/ Two Types of Linguistic Structure Dependency: focus on relations between words ROOT I saw a girl with a

730 views • 38 slides
Arc-Hybrid Non-Projective Dependency Parsing with a Static-Dynamic Oracle Miryam de Lhoneux , Sara

Arc-Hybrid Non-Projective Dependency Parsing with a Static-Dynamic Oracle Miryam de Lhoneux , Sara

Arc-Hybrid Non-Projective Dependency Parsing with a Static-Dynamic Oracle Miryam de Lhoneux , Sara Stymne and Joakim Nivre @ mdlhx 22 September 2017 Miryam de Lhoneux, Sara Stymne and Joakim Nivre Non-Projective Parsing with a Static-Dynamic

1.04k views • 85 slides
Computational Linguistics: Dynamic and Statistical Parsing Raffaella Bernardi CIMeC, University

Computational Linguistics: Dynamic and Statistical Parsing Raffaella Bernardi CIMeC, University

Computational Linguistics: Dynamic and Statistical Parsing Raffaella Bernardi CIMeC, University of Trento e-mail: bernardi@disi.unitn.it Contents First Last Prev Next Contents 1 Done and to be done. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

428 views • 32 slides
Top-Down Parsing Slides modified from Louden Book and Dr. Scherger Top Down Parsing A

Top-Down Parsing Slides modified from Louden Book and Dr. Scherger Top Down Parsing A

Compiler Design and Construction Top-Down Parsing Slides modified from Louden Book and Dr. Scherger Top Down Parsing A top-down parsing algorithm parses an input string of tokens by tracing out the steps in a leftmost derivation. Such an

1.12k views • 96 slides
Span-Based Constituency Parsing with Provably Optimal Dynamic Oracles James Cross and Liang Huang

Span-Based Constituency Parsing with Provably Optimal Dynamic Oracles James Cross and Liang Huang

Span-Based Constituency Parsing with Provably Optimal Dynamic Oracles James Cross and Liang Huang Oregon State University EMNLP, Austin, TX November 2, 2016 Dependency vs. Constituency S ROOT NP VP PRP MD VBP S subj dobj dobj aux

823 views • 71 slides
Statistical Dependency Parsing in Korean: From Corpus Generation To Automatic Parsing Workshop on

Statistical Dependency Parsing in Korean: From Corpus Generation To Automatic Parsing Workshop on

Statistical Dependency Parsing in Korean: From Corpus Generation To Automatic Parsing Workshop on Statistical Parsing of Morphologically-Rich Languages 12th International Conference on Parsing Technologies Jinho D. Choi &amp; Martha Palmer

199 views • 19 slides
Basic Parsing Algorithms Chart Parsing Seminar Recent Advances in Parsing Technology WS

Basic Parsing Algorithms Chart Parsing Seminar Recent Advances in Parsing Technology WS

Basic Parsing Algorithms Chart Parsing Seminar Recent Advances in Parsing Technology WS 2011/2012 Anna Schmidt Talk Outline Chart Parsing Basics Chart Parsing Algorithms Earley Algorithm CKY Algorithm Basics

1.12k views • 73 slides
Overview Introduction Lexicalized TAG, Advantages of parsing with LTAG Parsing LTAGs

Overview Introduction Lexicalized TAG, Advantages of parsing with LTAG Parsing LTAGs

Parsing with Lexicalized TAG (1) Extracting and comparing LTAG (2) Presentation by Philip John Gorinski Seminar Recent Advances in Parsing Technology Saarland University, Winter Term 2011/12 (1) Yves Shabes, Aravind K. Joshi, 1990 (2)

514 views • 36 slides
Dynamic Programming for Linear Time Incremental Parsing Liang Huang Information Sciences

Dynamic Programming for Linear Time Incremental Parsing Liang Huang Information Sciences

Dynamic Programming for Linear Time Incremental Parsing Liang Huang Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California Kenji Sagae Institute for Creative Technologies University of Southern California ACL 2010, Uppsala, Sweden,

1.1k views • 64 slides
* 07/16/96 Plan for Today Shift-reduce parsing The problem with predictive top down parsing

* 07/16/96 Plan for Today Shift-reduce parsing The problem with predictive top down parsing

* 07/16/96 Plan for Today Shift-reduce parsing The problem with predictive top down parsing CS453 : Shift Reduce Parsing LR parsing: bottom up Unambiguous Grammars LR(0) and SLR Parse Tables Performs a right-most derivation in

316 views • 6 slides
1 Determinism and Parsing The parsing problem is, given a string w and a context-free grammar G ,

1 Determinism and Parsing The parsing problem is, given a string w and a context-free grammar G ,

1 Determinism and Parsing The parsing problem is, given a string w and a context-free grammar G , to decide if w L ( G ), and if so, to construct a derivation or a parse tree for w . Parsing is studied in courses in compilers. To be efficient

520 views • 12 slides
Bottom-up parsing LR parsing Construct parse tree for input from leaves up LR( k ) parsing

Bottom-up parsing LR parsing Construct parse tree for input from leaves up LR( k ) parsing

Bottom-up parsing LR parsing Construct parse tree for input from leaves up LR( k ) parsing reducing a string of tokens to single start symbol L eft-to-right scan of input, R ightmost derivation (inverse of deriving a string of tokens from

413 views • 5 slides
Bottom Up Parsing Also known as Shift-Reduce parsing More powerful than top down Dont

Bottom Up Parsing Also known as Shift-Reduce parsing More powerful than top down Dont

9/26/2012 Bottom Up Parsing Also known as Shift-Reduce parsing More powerful than top down Dont need left factored grammars Can handle left recursion Bottom Up Parsing Attempt to construct parse tree from an input string

655 views • 6 slides
Dependency Parsing &amp; Feature-based Parsing Ling571 Deep Processing Techniques for NLP

Dependency Parsing &amp; Feature-based Parsing Ling571 Deep Processing Techniques for NLP

Dependency Parsing &amp; Feature-based Parsing Ling571 Deep Processing Techniques for NLP February 2, 2015 Roadmap Dependency parsing Graph-based dependency parsing Maximum spanning tree CLE Algorithm Learning

899 views • 87 slides
Statistical Parsing Parsing context-free languages ar ltekin University of Tbingen

Statistical Parsing Parsing context-free languages ar ltekin University of Tbingen

Statistical Parsing Parsing context-free languages ar ltekin University of Tbingen Seminar fr Sprachwissenschaft November 8, 2016 Recap Parsing basics CKY Earley Closing Ingredients of a (natural language) parser .

1.17k views • 51 slides

More recommend