DOCSLIB.ORG

A Probabilistic Earley Parser As a Psycholinguistic Model

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Probabilistic Earley Parser As a Psycholinguistic Model A Probabilistic Earley Parser as a Psycholinguistic Model John Hale Department of Cognitive Science The Johns Hopkins University 3400 North Charles Street; Baltimore MD 21218-2685 [email protected] Abstract performance. The present work adopts a numerical In human sentence processing, cognitive load can be view of competition in grammar that is grounded in defined many ways. This report considers a defini- probability. tion of cognitive load in terms of the total probability of structural options that have been disconfirmed at Principle 3 Sentence processing is eager. some point in a sentence: the surprisal of word w i “Eager” in this sense means the experimental situa- given its prefix w on a phrase-structural lan- 0:::i 1 tions to be modeled are ones like self-paced reading guage model. These− loads can be efficiently calcu- in which sentence comprehenders are unrushed and lated using a probabilistic Earley parser (Stolcke, no information is ignored at a point at which it could 1995) which is interpreted as generating predictions be used. about reading time on a word-by-word basis. Un- The proposal is that a person’s difficulty per- der grammatical assumptions supported by corpus- ceiving syntactic structure be modeled by word-to- frequency data, the operation of Stolcke’s probabilis- word surprisal (Attneave, 1959, page 6) which can tic Earley parser correctly predicts processing phe- be directly computed from a probabilistic phrase- nomena associated with garden path structural am- structure grammar. The approach taken here uses biguity and with the subject/object relative asym- a parsing algorithm developed by Stolcke. In the metry. course of explaining the algorithm at a very high Introduction level I will indicate how the algorithm, interpreted as a psycholinguistic model, observes each principle. What is the relation between a person’s knowledge of After that will come some simulation results, and grammar and that same person’s application of that then a conclusion. knowledge in perceiving syntactic structure? The answer to be proposed here observes three principles. 1 Language models Principle 1 The relation between the parser and Stolcke’s parsing algorithm was initially applied as a grammar is one of strong competence. component of an automatic speech recognition sys- tem. In speech recognition, one is often interested Strong competence holds that the human sentence in the probability that some word will follow, given processing mechanism directly uses rules of gram- that a sequence of words has been seen. Given some mar in its operation, and that a bare minimum of lexicon of all possible words, a language model as- extragrammatical machinery is necessary. This hy- signs a probability to every string of words from pothesis, originally proposed by Chomsky (Chom- the lexicon. This defines a probabilistic language sky, 1965, page 9) has been pursued by many re- (Grenander, 1967) (Booth and Thompson, 1973) searchers (Bresnan, 1982) (Stabler, 1991) (Steed- (Soule, 1974) (Wetherell, 1980). man, 1992) (Shieber and Johnson, 1993), and stands A language model helps a speech recognizer focus in contrast with an approach directed towards the its attention on words that are likely continuations discovery of autonomous principles unique to the of what it has recognized so far. This is typically processing mechanism. done using conditional probabilities of the form Principle 2 Frequency affects performance. P (Wn = wn W1 = w1,...Wn 1 =wn 1) | − − The explanatory success of neural network and the probability that the nth word will actually be constraint-based lexicalist theories (McClelland and wn given that the words leading up to the nth have St. John, 1989) (MacDonald et al., 1994) (Tabor et been w1,w2,...wn 1. Given some finite lexicon, the − al., 1997) suggests a statistical theory of language probability of each possible outcome for Wn can be estimated using that outcome’s relative frequency in during sentence processing is exactly this disconfir- a sample. mation. Traditional language models used for speech are n- gram models, in which n 1 words of history serve 2 Earley parsing as the basis for predicting− the nth word. Such mod- The computation of prefix probabilities takes advan- els do not have any notion of hierarchical syntactic tage of the design of the Earley parser (Earley, 1970) structure, except as might be visible through an n- which by itself is not probabilistic. In this section I word window. provide a brief overview of Stolcke’s algorithm but Aware that the n-gram obscures many the original paper should be consulted for full details linguistically-significant distinctions (Chomsky, (Stolcke, 1995). 1956, section 2.3), many speech researchers (Jelinek Earley parsers work top-down, and propagate and Lafferty, 1991) sought to incorporate hierar- predictions confirmed by the input string back up chical phrase structure into language modeling (see through a set of states representing hypotheses the (Stolcke, 1997)) although it was not until the late parser is entertaining about the structure of the sen- 1990s that such models were able to significantly tence. The global state of the parser at any one time improve on 3-grams (Chelba and Jelinek, 1998). is completely defined by this collection of states, a Stolcke’s probabilistic Earley parser is one way chart, which defines a tree set. A state is a record to use hierarchical phrase structure in a language that specifies model. The grammar it parses is a probabilistic the current input string position processed so context-free phrase structure grammar (PCFG), • far e.g. 1.0S NP VP a grammar rule → • 0.5NP Det N a “dot-position” in the rule representing how → 0.5NP NP VP • much of the rule has already been recognized . → . the leftmost edge of the substring this rule gen- • erates see (Charniak, 1993, chapter 5) An Earley parser has three main functions, pre- dict, scan and complete, each of which can enter Such a grammar defines a probabilistic language in new states into the chart. Starting from a dummy terms of a stochastic process that rewrites strings of start state in which the dot is just to the left of the grammar symbols according to the probabilities on grammar’s start symbol, predict adds new states for the rules. Then each sentence in the language of the rules which could expand the start symbol. In these grammar has a probability equal to the product of new predicted states, the dot is at the far left-hand the probabilities of all the rules used to generate it. side of each rule. After prediction, scan checks the This multiplication embodies the assumption that input string: if the symbol immediately following rule choices are independent. Sentences with more the dot matches the current word in the input, then than one derivation accumulate the probability of all the dot is moved rightward, across the symbol. The derivations that generate them. Through recursion, parser has “scanned” this word. Finally, complete infinite languages can be specified; an important propagates this change throughout the chart. If, as mathematical question in this context is whether or a result of scanning, any states are now present in not such a grammar is consistent – whether it assigns which the dot is at the end of a rule, then the left some probability to infinite derivations, or whether hand side of that rule has been recognized, and any all derivations are guaranteed to terminate. other states having a dot immediately in front of Even if a PCFG is consistent, it would appear to the newly-recognized left hand side symbol can now have another drawback: it only assigns probabili- have their dots moved as well. This happens over ties to complete sentences of its language. This is as and over until no new states are generated. Parsing inconvenient for speech recognition as it is for mod- finishes when the dot in the dummy start state is eling reading times. moved across the grammar’s start symbol. Stolcke’s algorithm solves this problem by com- Stolcke’s innovation, as regards prefix probabili- puting, at each word of an input string, the prefix ties is to add two additional pieces of information to probability. This is the sum of the probabilities of all each state: α, the forward, or prefix probability, and derivations whose yield is compatible with the string γ the “inside” probability. He notes that seen so far. If the grammar is consistent (the proba- bilities of all derivations sum to 1.0) then subtracting path An (unconstrained) Earley path, the prefix probability from 1.0 gives the total proba- or simply path, is a sequence of Earley bility of all the analyses the parser has disconfirmed. states linked by prediction, scanning, If the human parser is eager, then the “work” done or completion. constrained A path is said to be con- processing mechanism. Theories of initial parsing strained by, or generate a string x if preferences (Fodor and Ferreira, 1998) suggest that the terminals immediately to the left the human parser is fundamentally serial: a func- of the dot in all scanned states, in se- tion from a tree and new word to a new tree. These quence, form the string x. theories explain processing difficulty by appealing ... to “garden pathing” in which the current analysis The significance of Earley paths is that is faced with words that cannot be reconciled with they are in a one-to-one correspondence the structures built so far. A middle ground is held with left-most derivations. This will al- by bounded-parallelism theories (Narayanan and Ju- low us to talk about probabilities of deriva- rafsky, 1998) (Roark and Johnson, 1999). In these tions, strings and prefixes in terms of the theories the human parser is modeled as a function actions performed by Earley’s parser.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LATE Ain't Earley: a Faster Parallel Earley Parser
    LATE Ain’T Earley: A Faster Parallel Earley Parser Peter Ahrens John Feser Joseph Hui [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] July 18, 2018 Abstract We present the LATE algorithm, an asynchronous variant of the Earley algorithm for pars- ing context-free grammars. The Earley algorithm is naturally task-based, but is difficult to parallelize because of dependencies between the tasks. We present the LATE algorithm, which uses additional data structures to maintain information about the state of the parse so that work items may be processed in any order. This property allows the LATE algorithm to be sped up using task parallelism. We show that the LATE algorithm can achieve a 120x speedup over the Earley algorithm on a natural language task. 1 Introduction Improvements in the efficiency of parsers for context-free grammars (CFGs) have the potential to speed up applications in software development, computational linguistics, and human-computer interaction. The Earley parser has an asymptotic complexity that scales with the complexity of the CFG, a unique, desirable trait among parsers for arbitrary CFGs. However, while the more commonly used Cocke-Younger-Kasami (CYK) [2, 5, 12] parser has been successfully parallelized [1, 7], the Earley algorithm has seen relatively few attempts at parallelization. Our research objectives were to understand when there exists parallelism in the Earley algorithm, and to explore methods for exploiting this parallelism. We first tried to naively parallelize the Earley algorithm by processing the Earley items in each Earley set in parallel. We found that this approach does not produce any speedup, because the dependencies between Earley items force much of the work to be performed sequentially.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 10: CYK and Earley Parsers Alvin Cheung Building Parse Trees Maaz Ahmad CYK and Earley Algorithms Talia Ringer More Disambiguation
    Hack Your Language! CSE401 Winter 2016 Introduction to Compiler Construction Ras Bodik Lecture 10: CYK and Earley Parsers Alvin Cheung Building Parse Trees Maaz Ahmad CYK and Earley algorithms Talia Ringer More Disambiguation Ben Tebbs 1 Announcements • HW3 due Sunday • Project proposals due tonight – No late days • Review session this Sunday 6-7pm EEB 115 2 Outline • Last time we saw how to construct AST from parse tree • We will now discuss algorithms for generating parse trees from input strings 3 Today CYK parser builds the parse tree bottom up More Disambiguation Forcing the parser to select the desired parse tree Earley parser solves CYK’s inefficiency 4 CYK parser Parser Motivation • Given a grammar G and an input string s, we need an algorithm to: – Decide whether s is in L(G) – If so, generate a parse tree for s • We will see two algorithms for doing this today – Many others are available – Each with different tradeoffs in time and space 6 CYK Algorithm • Parsing algorithm for context-free grammars • Invented by John Cocke, Daniel Younger, and Tadao Kasami • Basic idea given string s with n tokens: 1. Find production rules that cover 1 token in s 2. Use 1. to find rules that cover 2 tokens in s 3. Use 2. to find rules that cover 3 tokens in s 4. … N. Use N-1. to find rules that cover n tokens in s. If succeeds then s is in L(G), else it is not 7 A graphical way to visualize CYK Initial graph: the input (terminals) Repeat: add non-terminal edges until no more can be added.
    [Show full text]
  • Simple, Efficient, Sound-And-Complete Combinator Parsing for All Context
    Simple, efficient, sound-and-complete combinator parsing for all context-free grammars, using an oracle OCaml 2014 workshop, talk proposal Tom Ridge University of Leicester, UK [email protected] This proposal describes a parsing library that is based on current grammar, the start symbol and the input to the back-end Earley work due to be published as [3]. The talk will focus on the OCaml parser, which parses the input and returns a parsing oracle. The library and its usage. oracle is then used to guide the action phase of the parser. 1. Combinator parsers 4. Real-world performance 3 Parsers for context-free grammars can be implemented directly and In addition to O(n ) theoretical performance, we also optimize our naturally in a functional style known as “combinator parsing”, us- back-end Earley parser. Extensive performance measurements on ing recursion following the structure of the grammar rules. Tradi- small grammars (described in [3]) indicate that the performance is tionally parser combinators have struggled to handle all features of arguably better than the Happy parser generator [1]. context-free grammars, such as left recursion. 5. Online distribution 2. Sound and complete combinator parsers This work has led to the P3 parsing library for OCaml, freely Previous work [2] introduced novel parser combinators that could available online1. The distribution includes extensive examples. be used to parse all context-free grammars. A parser generator built Some of the examples are: using these combinators was proved both sound and complete in the • HOL4 theorem prover. Parsing and disambiguation of arithmetic expressions using This previous approach has all the traditional benefits of combi- precedence annotations.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Upon Earley's Parsing Algorithm in Prolog
    Improving Upon Earley’s Parsing Algorithm In Prolog Matt Voss Artificial Intelligence Center University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 May 7, 2004 Abstract This paper presents a modification of the Earley (1970) parsing algorithm in Prolog. The Earley algorithm presented here is based on an implementation in Covington (1994a). The modifications are meant to improve on that algorithm in several key ways. The parser features a predictor that works like a left-corner parser with links, thus decreasing the number of chart entries. It implements subsump- tion checking, and organizes chart entries to take advantage of first argument indexing for quick retrieval. 1 Overview The Earley parsing algorithm is well known for its great efficiency in produc- ing all possible parses of a sentence in relatively little time, without back- tracking, and while handling left recursive rules correctly. It is also known for being considerably slower than most other parsing algorithms1. This pa- per outlines an attempt to overcome many of the pitfalls associated with implementations of Earley parsers. It uses the Earley parser in Covington (1994a) as a starting point. In particular the Earley top-down predictor is exchanged for a predictor that works like a left-corner predictor with links, 1See Covington (1994a) for one comparison of run times for a variety of algorithms. 1 following Leiss (1990). Chart entries store the positions of constituents in the input string, rather than lists containing the constituents themselves, and the arguments of chart entries are arranged to take advantage of first argument indexing. This means a small trade-off between easy-to-read code and efficiency of processing.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Parsing Techniques
    Advanced Parsing Techniques Announcements ● Written Set 1 graded. ● Hard copies available for pickup right now. ● Electronic submissions: feedback returned later today. Where We Are Where We Are Parsing so Far ● We've explored five deterministic parsing algorithms: ● LL(1) ● LR(0) ● SLR(1) ● LALR(1) ● LR(1) ● These algorithms all have their limitations. ● Can we parse arbitrary context-free grammars? Why Parse Arbitrary Grammars? ● They're easier to write. ● Can leave operator precedence and associativity out of the grammar. ● No worries about shift/reduce or FIRST/FOLLOW conflicts. ● If ambiguous, can filter out invalid trees at the end. ● Generate candidate parse trees, then eliminate them when not needed. ● Practical concern for some languages. ● We need to have C and C++ compilers! Questions for Today ● How do you go about parsing ambiguous grammars efficiently? ● How do you produce all possible parse trees? ● What else can we do with a general parser? The Earley Parser Motivation: The Limits of LR ● LR parsers use shift and reduce actions to reduce the input to the start symbol. ● LR parsers cannot deterministically handle shift/reduce or reduce/reduce conflicts. ● However, they can nondeterministically handle these conflicts by guessing which option to choose. ● What if we try all options and see if any of them work? The Earley Parser ● Maintain a collection of Earley items, which are LR(0) items annotated with a start position. ● The item A → α·ω @n means we are working on recognizing A → αω, have seen α, and the start position of the item was the nth token. ● Using techniques similar to LR parsing, try to scan across the input creating these items.
    [Show full text]
  • 0368-3133 Lecture 4: Syntax Analysis: Earley Parsing Bottom-Up
    Compilation 0368-3133 Lecture 4: Syntax Analysis: Earley Parsing Bottom-Up Parsing Noam Rinetzky 1 The Real Anatomy oF a Compiler txt Process Lexical Syntax Sem. characters Lexical tokens Syntax AST Source text Analysis Analysis Analysis input text Annotated AST Intermediate Intermediate Code code IR code IR generation generation optimization Symbolic Instructions exe Target code SI Machine code MI Write optimization generation executable Executable output code 2 Broad kinds of parsers • Parsers For arbitrary grammars – Earley’s method, CYK method – Usually, not used in practice (though might change) • Top-Down parsers – Construct parse tree in a top-down matter – Find the leFtmost derivation • Bottom-Up parsers – Construct parse tree in a bottom-up manner – Find the rightmost derivation in a reverse order 3 Intuition: Top-down parsing • Begin with start symbol • Guess the productions • Check iF parse tree yields user's program 4 Intuition: Top-down parsing Unambiguous grammar E ® E + T E ® T T ® T * F T ® F E F ® id F ® num E F ® ( E ) T T T F F F 1 * 2 + 3 5 Intuition: Top-down parsing Unambiguous grammar Left-most E ® E + T derivation E ® T T ® T * F T ® F E F ® id F ® num F ® ( E ) 1 * 2 + 3 6 Intuition: Top-down parsing Unambiguous grammar E ® E + T E ® T T ® T * F T ® F E F ® id F ® num E F ® ( E ) T 1 * 2 + 3 7 Intuition: Top-down parsing Unambiguous grammar E ® E + T E ® T T ® T * F T ® F E F ® id F ® num E F ® ( E ) T T 1 * 2 + 3 8 Intuition: Top-Down parsing Unambiguous grammar E ® E + T E ® T T ® T * F T ® F E F ® id F ® num
    [Show full text]
  • Parsing with Earley Virtual Machines
    Communication papers of the Federated Conference on DOI: 10.15439/2017F162 Computer Science and Information Systems, pp. 165–173 ISSN 2300-5963 ACSIS, Vol. 13 Parsing with Earley Virtual Machines Audrius Saikˇ unas¯ Institute of Mathematics and Informatics Akademijos 4, LT-08663 Vilnius, Lithuania Email: [email protected] Abstract—Earley parser is a well-known parsing method used EVM is capable of parsing context-free languages with data- to analyse context-free grammars. While being less efficient in dependant constraints. The core idea behind of EVM is to practical contexts than other generalized context-free parsing have two different grammar representations: one is user- algorithms, such as GLR, it is also more general. As such it can be used as a foundation to build more complex parsing algorithms. friendly and used to define grammars, while the other is used We present a new, virtual machine based approach to parsing, internally during parsing. Therefore, we end up with grammars heavily based on the original Earley parser. We present several that specify the languages in a user-friendly way, which are variations of the Earley Virtual Machine, each with increasing then compiled into grammar programs that are executed or feature set. The final version of the Earley Virtual Machine is interpreted by the EVM to match various input sequences. capable of parsing context-free grammars with data-dependant constraints and support grammars with regular right hand sides We present several iterations of EVM: and regular lookahead. • EVM0 that is equivalent to the original Earley parser in We show how to translate grammars into virtual machine it’s capabilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Earley Parser Earley Parser
    NLP Introduction to NLP Earley Parser Earley parser • Problems with left recursion in top-down parsing – VP à VP PP • Background – Developed by Jay Earley in 1970 – No need to convert the grammar to CNF – Left to right • Complexity – Faster than O(n3) in many cases Earley Parser • Looks for both full and partial constituents • When reading word k, it has already identified all hypotheses that are consistent with words 1 to k- 1 • Example: – S [i,j] à Aux . NP VP – NP [j,k] à N – S [i,k] à Aux NP . VP Earley Parser • It uses a dynamic programming table, just like CKY • Example entry in column 1 – [0:1] VP -> VP . PP – Created when processing word 1 – Corresponds to words 0 to 1 (these words correspond to the VP part of the RHS of the rule) – The dot separates the completed (known) part from the incomplete (and possibly unattainable) part Earley Parser • Three types of entries – ‘scan’ – for words – ‘predict’ – for non-terminals – ‘complete’ – otherwise Earley Parser Algorithm Figure from Jurafsky and Martin Earley Parser Algorithm Figure from Jurafsky and Martin S -> NP VP Det -> 'the' S -> Aux NP VP Det -> 'a' S -> VP Det -> 'this' NP -> PRON PRON -> 'he' NP -> Det Nom PRON -> 'she' Nom -> N N -> 'book' Nom -> Nom N N -> 'boys' Nom -> Nom PP N -> 'girl' PP -> PRP NP PRP -> 'with' VP -> V PRP -> 'in' VP -> V NP V -> 'takes' VP -> VP PP V -> 'take' |. take . this . book .| |[-----------] . .| [0:1] 'take' |. [-----------] .| [1:2] 'this' |. [-----------]| [2:3] 'book’ Example created using NLTK |. take . this . book .| |[-----------] .
    [Show full text]
  • A Vısual Basic Application Ogf Early Algorithm
    VISUAL BASIC APPLICATION OF THE EARLEY ALGORITHM Zeynep ALTAN [email protected] Istanbul University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Computer Science, 34850 Avcılar, Istanbul Key Words: Recognition and Parsing, Earley Algorithm, Computational Linguistics, Formal Language Theory. algorithm (bottom-up parsing methods).2 This ABSTRACT algorithm has some advantages according to As abstract systems have become more sophisticated, other context-free based algorithms. For natural language processing systems have been one example; Knuth’s LR(k) algorithm can only of the most interesting topics of computer science. work on some subclass of grammars, so they can Because of the contributions of Turkish to be done in the time n and, they are called as computational applications and the language’s rich restricted algorithms including a lot of linguistic properties, Turkish studies are approved in ambiguities. CKY algorithm parses any string linguistic theory. This study presents a Visual Basic 3 application of the Earley Algorithm that parses the with the length n in time proportional to O(n ) sentences being independent from the language in a [7]. The time complexity of the Earley visual environment. Algorithm for CFGs also depends on a number of special classes of grammars. If the parsing steps I. INTRODUCTION are defined according to an unambiguous The purpose of the abstract systems has been the grammar, the processes execute in O(n2) simulation of the words or the sentences to obtain reasonably defined elementary operations, but for the speech recognition algorithms. Context-Free ambiguous context-free grammars it is required Grammars (CFGs ) which are widely used to O(n3) elementary operations, when the length of parse the natural language syntax are the the input is n.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13 Syntactic Parsing
    Chapter 13 Syntactic Parsing There are and can exist but two ways of investigating and discovering truth. The one hurries on rapidly from the senses and particulars to the most general axioms, and from them. derives and discovers the intermediate axioms. The other constructs its axioms from the senses and particulars, by ascending continually and gradually, till it finally arrives at the most general axioms. Francis Bacon, Novum Organum Book I.19 (1620) We defined parsing in Chapter 3 as a combination of recognizing an input string and assigning a structure to it. Syntactic parsing, then, is the task of recognizing a sentence and assigning a syntactic structure to it. This chapter focuses on the kind of structures assigned by context-free grammars of the kind described in Chapter 12. However, since they are based on a purely declarative formalism, context-free grammars don’t specify how the parse tree for a given sentence should be computed. We therefore need to specify algorithms that employ these grammars to produce trees. This chapter presents three of the most widely used parsing algorithms for automatically assigning a complete context-free (phrase-structure) tree to an input sentence. These kinds of parse trees are directly useful in applications such as grammar checking in word-processing systems: a sentence that cannot be parsed may have grammatical errors (or at least be hard to read). More typically, however, parse trees serve as an important intermediate stage of representation for semantic analysis (as we show in Chapter 18) and thus play an important role in applications like question answering and information extraction.
    [Show full text]
  • A Modified Earley Parser for Huge Natural Language Grammars 2 Earley Parser
    A Modified Earley Parser for Huge Natural Language Grammars Sinan Polat, Merve Selcuk-Simsek, and Ilyas Cicekli Department of Computer Engineering Hacettepe University Ankara, Turkey [email protected] fmerveselcuk, [email protected] Abstract. For almost a half century Earley parser has been used in the parsing of context-free grammars and it is considered as a touch-stone algorithm in the history of parsing algorithms. On the other hand, it is also known for being expensive from its time requirement and memory usage perspectives. For huge context-free grammars, its performance is not good since its time complexity also depends on the number of rules in the grammar. The time complexity of the original Earley parser is O(R2N 3) where N is the string length, and R is the number of rules. In this paper, we aim to improve time and memory usage performances of Earley parser for grammars with a large number of rules. In our approach, we prefer radix tree representation for rules instead of list representation as in original Earley parser. We have tested our algorithm using different number of rule sets up to 200,000 which are all learned by an example- based machine translation system. According to our evaluation results, our modified parser has a time bound of O(log(R)N 3), and it has 20% less memory usage regarding the original Earley parser. Keywords: earley parser, computational linguistics, natural language processing 1 Introduction Grammar parsers first revealed with programming languages. Until Earley's algorithm, the previous algorithms had been able only to parse unambiguous grammars, or subsets of context-free grammars.
    [Show full text]
  • Parsing I: Earley Parser
    Parsing I: Earley Parser CMSC 35100 Natural Language Processing May 1, 2003 Roadmap • Parsing: – Accepting & analyzing – Combining top-down & bottom-up constraints • Efficiency – Earley parsers • Probabilistic CFGs – Handling ambiguity – more likely analyses – Adding probabilities • Grammar • Parsing: probabilistic CYK • Learning probabilities: Treebanks & Inside-Outside • Issues with probabilities Representation: Context-free Grammars • CFGs: 4-tuple – A set of terminal symbols: Σ – A set of non-terminal symbols: N – A set of productions P: of the form A -> α • Where A is a non-terminal and α in ( Σ U N)* – A designated start symbol S • L = W|w in Σ* and S=>*w – Where S=>*w means S derives w by some seq Representation: Context-free Grammars • Partial example – Σ: the, cat, dog, bit, bites, man – N: NP, VP, AdjP, Nominal – P: S-> NP VP; NP -> Det Nom; Nom-> N Nom|N –S S NP VP Det Nom V NP N Det Nom N The dog bit the man Parsing Goals • Accepting: – Legal string in language? • Formally: rigid • Practically: degrees of acceptability • Analysis – What structure produced the string? • Produce one (or all) parse trees for the string Parsing Search Strategies • Top-down constraints: – All analyses must start with start symbol: S – Successively expand non-terminals with RHS – Must match surface string • Bottom-up constraints: – Analyses start from surface string – Identify POS – Match substring of ply with RHS to LHS – Must ultimately reach S Integrating Strategies • Left-corner parsing: – Top-down parsing with bottom-up constraints – Begin
    [Show full text]