File size: 82,507 Bytes
6fa4bc9 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 |
{
"paper_id": "I08-1003",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T07:41:18.988253Z"
},
"title": "A Hybrid Approach to the Induction of Underlying Morphology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tepper",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Washington Seattle",
"location": {
"postCode": "98195",
"region": "WA"
}
},
"email": "mtepper@u.washington.edu"
},
{
"first": "Fei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xia",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "fxia@u.washington.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We present a technique for refining a baseline segmentation and generating a plausible underlying morpheme segmentation by integrating handwritten rewrite rules into an existing state-of-the-art unsupervised morphological induction procedure. Performance on measures which consider surface-boundary accuracy and underlying morpheme consistency indicates this technique leads to improvements over baseline segmentations for English and Turkish word lists.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "I08-1003",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We present a technique for refining a baseline segmentation and generating a plausible underlying morpheme segmentation by integrating handwritten rewrite rules into an existing state-of-the-art unsupervised morphological induction procedure. Performance on measures which consider surface-boundary accuracy and underlying morpheme consistency indicates this technique leads to improvements over baseline segmentations for English and Turkish word lists.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The primary goal of unsupervised morphological induction (UMI) is the simultaneous induction of a reasonable morphological lexicon as well as an optimal segmentation of a corpus of words, given that lexicon. The majority of existing approaches employ statistical modeling towards this goal, but differ with respect to how they learn or refine the morphological lexicon. While some approaches involve lexical priors, either internally motivated or motivated by the minimal description length (MDL) criterion, some utilize heuristics. Pure maximum likelihood (ML) approaches may refine the lexicon with heuristics in lieu of explicit priors (Creutz and Lagus, 2004) , or not make categorical refinements at all concerning which morphs are included, only probabilistic refinements through a hierarchical EM procedure (Peng and Schuurmans, 2001) . Approaches that optimize the lexicon with respect to priors come in several flavors. There are basic maximum a priori (MAP) approaches that try to maximize the probability of the lexicon against linguistically motivated priors (Deligne and Bimbot, 1997; Snover and Brent, 2001 ; Creutz and Lagus, 2005) . An alternative to MAP, MDL approaches use their own set of priors motivated by complexity theory. These studies attempt to minimize lexicon complexity (bit-length in crude MDL) while simultaneously minimizing the complexity (by maximizing the probability) of the corpus given the lexicon (de Marcken, 1996; Goldsmith, 2001; Creutz and Lagus, 2002) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 639,
"end": 663,
"text": "(Creutz and Lagus, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 814,
"end": 841,
"text": "(Peng and Schuurmans, 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 1071,
"end": 1097,
"text": "(Deligne and Bimbot, 1997;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 1098,
"end": 1120,
"text": "Snover and Brent, 2001",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 1123,
"end": 1146,
"text": "Creutz and Lagus, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 1437,
"end": 1455,
"text": "(de Marcken, 1996;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 1456,
"end": 1472,
"text": "Goldsmith, 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 1473,
"end": 1496,
"text": "Creutz and Lagus, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Unsupervised Morphological Induction",
"sec_num": "1.1"
},
{
"text": "Many of the approaches mentioned above utilize a simplistic unigram model of morphology to produce the segmentation of the corpus given the lexicon. Substrings in the lexicon are proposed as morphs within a word based on frequency alone, independently of phrase-, word-and morph-surroundings (de Marcken, 1996; Peng and Schuurmans, 2001; Creutz and Lagus, 2002) . There are many approaches, however, which further constrain the segmentation procedure. The work by Creutz and Lagus (2004; 2005; constrains segmentation by accounting for morphotactics, first assigning mophotactic categories (prefix, suffix, and stem) to baseline morphs, and then seeding and refining an HMM using those category assignments. Other more structured models include Goldsmith's (2001) work which, instead of inducing morphemes, induces morphological signatures like {\u00f8, s, ed, ing} for English regular verbs. Some techniques constrain possible analyses by employing approximations for morphological meaning or usage to prevent false derivations (like singed = sing + ed ). There is work by Schone and Jurafsky (2000; 2001) where meaning is proxied by wordand morph-context, condensed via LSA. Yarowsky and Wicentowski (2000) and Yarowsky et al. (2001) use expectations on relative frequency of aligned inflected-word, stem pairs, as well as POS context features, both of which approximate some sort of meaning.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 292,
"end": 310,
"text": "(de Marcken, 1996;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 337,
"text": "Peng and Schuurmans, 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 361,
"text": "Creutz and Lagus, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 464,
"end": 487,
"text": "Creutz and Lagus (2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 488,
"end": 493,
"text": "2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 745,
"end": 763,
"text": "Goldsmith's (2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 1069,
"end": 1095,
"text": "Schone and Jurafsky (2000;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1096,
"end": 1101,
"text": "2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 1172,
"end": 1203,
"text": "Yarowsky and Wicentowski (2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 1208,
"end": 1230,
"text": "Yarowsky et al. (2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Unsupervised Morphological Induction",
"sec_num": "1.1"
},
{
"text": "Allomorphy, or allomorphic variation, is the process by which a morpheme varies (orthographically or phonologically) in particular contexts, as constrained by a grammar. 1 To our knowledge, there is only handful of work within UMI attempting to integrate allomorphy into morpheme discovery. A notable approach is the Wordframe model developed by Wicentowski (2002) , which performs weighted edits on root-forms, given context, as part of a larger similarity alignment model for discovering <inflected-form, root-form> pairs.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 346,
"end": 364,
"text": "Wicentowski (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Allomorphy in UMI",
"sec_num": "1.2"
},
{
"text": "Morphological complexity is fixed by a template; the original was designed for inflectional morphologies and thus constrained to finding an optional affix on either side of a stem. Such a template would be difficult to design for agglutinative morphologies like Turkish or Finnish, where stems are regularly inflected by chains of affixes. Still, it can be extended. A notable recent extension accounts for phenomena like infixation and reduplication in Filipino (Cheng and See, 2006) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 463,
"end": 484,
"text": "(Cheng and See, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Allomorphy in UMI",
"sec_num": "1.2"
},
{
"text": "In terms of allomorphy, the approach succeeds at generalizing allomorphic patterns, both steminternally and at points of affixation. A major drawback is that, so far, it does not account for affix allomorphy involving character replacement-that is, beyond point-of-affixation epentheses or deletions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Allomorphy in UMI",
"sec_num": "1.2"
},
{
"text": "Our approach aims to integrate a rule-based component consisting of hand-written rewrite rules into an otherwise unsupervised morphological induction procedure in order to refine the segmentations it produces.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Our Approach",
"sec_num": "1.3"
},
{
"text": "The major contribution of this work is a rulebased component which enables simple encoding of context-sensitive rewrite rules for the analysis of induced morphs into plausible underlying morphemes. 2 A rule has the form general form:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Context-Sensitive Rewrite Rules",
"sec_num": "1.3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u03b1 underlying \u2192 \u03b2 surface / \u03b3 l. context _ \u03b4 r. context (1)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Context-Sensitive Rewrite Rules",
"sec_num": "1.3.1"
},
{
"text": "It is also known as a SPE-style rewrite rule, part of the formal apparatus to introduced by Chomsky and Halle (1968) to account for regularities in phonology. Here we use it to describe orthographic patterns. Mapping morphemes to underlying forms with context-sensitive rewrite rules allows us to peer through the fragmentation created by allomorphic variation. Our experiments will show that this has the effect of allowing for more unified, consistent morphemes while simultaneously making surface boundaries more transparent.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Context-Sensitive Rewrite Rules",
"sec_num": "1.3.1"
},
{
"text": "For example, take the English multipurpose inflectional suffix \u2022s, normally written as \u2022s, but as \u2022es after sibilants (s,sh, ch, . . . ). We can write the following SPE-style rule to account for its variation. This rule says, \"Insert an e (map nothing to e) following a character marked as a sibilant (+SIB) and a morphological boundary (+), at the focus position (_), immediately preceding an s.\" In short, it enables the mapping of the underlying form \u2022s to \u2022es by inserting an e before s where appropriate. When this rule is reversed to produce underlying analyses, the \u2022es variant in such words as glasses, matches, swishes, and buzzes can be identified with the \u2022s variant in words like plots, sits, quakes, and nips.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Context-Sensitive Rewrite Rules",
"sec_num": "1.3.1"
},
{
"text": "Before the start of the procedure, there is a preprocessing step to derive an initial segmentation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Overview of Procedure",
"sec_num": "1.3.2"
},
{
"text": "This segmentation is fed to the EM Stage, the goal of which is to find the maximum probability segmentation of a wordlist into underlying morphemes. First, analyses of initial segments are produced by rule. Then, their frequency is used to determine their likelihood as underlying morphemes. Finally, probability of a segmentation into underlying morphemes is maximized.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Overview of Procedure",
"sec_num": "1.3.2"
},
{
"text": "The output segmentation feeds into the Split Stage, where heuristics are used to split large, highfrequency segments that fail to break into smaller underlying morphemes during the EM algorithm.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Overview of Procedure",
"sec_num": "1.3.2"
},
{
"text": "A flowchart of the procedure is given in Figure 1 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 49,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Procedure",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Preprocessing We use the Categories-MAP algorithm developed by Creutz and Lagus (2005; to produce an initial morphological segmentation. Here, a segmentation is optimized by maximum a posteriori estimate given priors on length, frequency, and usage of morphs stored in the model. Their procedure begins with morphological tags indicating basic morphotactics (prefix, stem, suffix, noise) being assigned heuristically to a baseline segmentation. That tag assignment is then used to seed an HMM.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 86,
"text": "Creutz and Lagus (2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Procedure",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Morfessor 0.9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Preprocess",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Step 1",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Categories-MAP",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Step 2",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Propose Underlying Analyses",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Step 3 Re-segment Wordlist",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Estimate HMM Probabilities",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Rewrite Rules analyses probs.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Estimate HMM Probabilities",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Orig. Wordlist",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Estimate HMM Probabilities",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Step 4 Re-tag Segmentation",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "SPLIT STAGE",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Step 7",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Rewrite Rules",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Re-segment (Split) Morphs probs. Step 6",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Rewrite Rules",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Estimate HMM Probabilities",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Rewrite Rules",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Step 5 Optimal segmentation of a word is simultaneously the best tag and morph 3 sequence given that word. The contents of the model are optimized with respect to length, frequency, and usage priors during splitting and joining phases. The final output is a tagged segmentation of the input word-list.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Rewrite Rules",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The model we train is a modified version of the morphological HMM from the work of Lagus (2004-2006) , where a word w consists of a sequence of morphs generated by a morphologicalcategory tag sequence. The difference between their HMM and ours is that theirs emits surface morphs, while ours emits underlying morphemes. Morphemes may either be analyses proposed by rule or surface morphs acting as morphemes. We do not modify the tags Creutz and Lagus use (prefix, stem, suffix, and noise).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 100,
"text": "Lagus (2004-2006)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "We proceed by EM, initialized by the preprocessed segmentation. Rule-generated underlying analyses are produced (Step 1), and used to estimate the emission probability P (u i |t i ) and transition probability",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "P (t i |t i\u22121 ) (",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Step 2). In successive E-steps, Steps 1 and 2 are repeated. The M-step (Step 3) involves finding the maximum probability decoding of each word according to Eq (6), i.e. maximum probability tag and morpheme sequence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Step 1 -Derive Underlying Analyses In this step, handwritten context-sensitive rewrite rules derive context-relevant analyses for morphs in the preprocessed segmentation. These analyses are produced by a set of ordered rules that propose dele-3 A morph is a linguistic morpheme as it occurs in production, i.e. as it occurs in a surface word. tions, insertions, or substitutions when triggered by the proper characters around a segmentation boundary. 4 A rule applies wherever contextually triggered, from left to right, and may apply more than once to the same word. To prevent the runaway application of certain rules, a rule may not apply to its own output. The result of applying a rule is a (possibly spelling-changed) segmented word, which is fed to the next rule. This enables multi-step analyses by using rules designed specifically to apply to the outputs of other rules. See Figure 2 for a small example.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 885,
"end": 893,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Step 2 -Estimate HMM Probabilities Transition probabilities P (t i |t i\u22121 ) are estimated by maximum likelihood, given a tagged input segmentation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Emission probabilities P (u i |t i ) are also estimated by maximum likelihood, but the situation is slightly more complex; the probability of morphemes u i are estimated according to frequencies of association (coindexation) with surface morphs s i and tags t i .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Furthermore an underlying morpheme u i can either be identical to its associated surface morph s i when no rules apply, or be a rule-generated analysis. For the sake of clarity, we call the former u i and the latter u i , as defined below: Figure 2 : Underlying analyses for a segmentation are generated by passing it through context-sensitive rewrite rules. Rules apply to some morphs (e.g., citi \u2192 city) but not to others (e.g., glass \u2192 glass). u i . The probability of u i given tag t i is calculated by summing over all allomorphs s of u i the probability that u i realizes s in the context of tag t i :",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 240,
"end": 248,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "u i = u i if u i = s i u i otherwise",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "P (u i |t i ) = s\u2208allom.-of(ui) P (u i , s|t i ) (3) = s\u2208allom.-of(ui) P (u i |s, t i )P (s|t i ) (4)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Both Eq (3) and Eq (4) are trivial to estimate with counting on our input from Step 1 (see Figure 2 ). We show (4) because it has the term P (u i |s, t i ), which may be used for thresholding and discounting terms of the sum where u i is rarely associated with a particular allomorph and tag. In the future, such discounting may be useful to filter out noise generated by noisy or permissive rules. So far, this type of discounting has not improved results.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 100,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Step 3 -Resegment Word List Next we resegment the word list into underlying morphemes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Searching for the best breakdown of a word w into morpheme sequence u and tag sequence t, we maximize the probability of the following formula:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "P (w, u, t) = P (w|u, t)P (u, t) = P (w|u, t)P (u|t)P (t)",
"eq_num": "(5)"
}
],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "To simplify, we assume that P (w|u, t) is equal to one. 5 With this assumption in mind, Eq (5) reduces to P (u|t)P (t). With independence assumptions and a local time horizon, we estimate:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "argmax u,t P (u|t)P (t) \u2248 argmax u,t n i=1 P (u i |t i )P (t i |t i\u22121 ) (6) 5",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "In other words, we make the assumption that a sequence of underlying morphemes and tags corresponds to just one word. This assumption may need revision in cases where morphemes can optionally undergo the types of spelling changes we are trying to encode; this has not been the case for the languages under investigation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "The search for the maximum probability tag and morph sequence in Eq (6) is carried out by a modified version of the Viterbi algorithm. The maximum probability segmentation for a given word may be a mixture of both types of underlying morpheme, u i and u i . Also, wherever we have a choice between emitting u i , identical to the surface form, or u i , an analysis with rule-proposed changes, the highest probability of the two is always selected.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "EM Stage",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Many times, large morphs have substructure and yet are too frequent to be split when segmented by the HMM in the EM Stage. To overcome this, we approximately follow the heuristic procedure 6 laid out by Creutz and Lagus (2004) , encouraging splitting of larger morphs into smaller underlying morphemes. This process has the danger of introducing many false analyses, so first the segmentation must be re-tagged (Step 4) to identify which morphemes are noise and should not be used. Once we re-tag, we re-analyze morphs in the surface segmentation (Step 5) and re-estimate HMM probabilities (Step 6). (for Steps 5 and 6, refer to Steps 1 and 2). Finally, we use these HMM probabilities to split morphs (Step 7).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 203,
"end": 226,
"text": "Creutz and Lagus (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Split Stage",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Step 4 -Re-tag the Segmentation To identify noise morphemes, we estimate a distribution P (CAT |u i ) for three true categories CAT (prefix, stem, or suffix) and one noise category; we then assign categories randomly according to this distribution. Stem probabilities are proportional to stemlength, while affix probabilities are proportional to left-or right-perplexity. The probability of true categories are also tied to the value of sigmoid-cutoff parameters, the most important of which is b, which thresholds the probability of both types of affix (prefix and suffix).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Split Stage",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "The probability of the noise category is conversely related to the product of true category probabilities; when true categories are less probable, noise becomes more probable. Thus, adjusting parameters like b can increase or decrease the probability of noise.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Split Stage",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Step 7 -Split Morphs In this step, we examine <morph, tag> pairs in the segmentation to see if a split into sub-morphemes is warranted. We constrain this process by restricting splitting to stems (with the option to split affixes), and by splitting into restricted sequences of tags, particularly avoiding noise. We also use parameter b in Step 4 as a way to discourage excessive splitting by tagging more morphemes as noise. Stems are split into the sequence: (PRE * STM SUF * ). Affixes (prefixes and suffixes) are split into other affixes of the same category. Whether to split affixes depends on typological properties of the language. If a language has agglutinative suffixation, for example, we hand-set a parameter to allow suffix-splitting.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Split Stage",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "When examining a morph for splitting, we search over all segmentations with at least one split, and choose the one that is both optimal according to Eq (6) and does not violate our constraints on what category sequences are allowed for its category. We end this step by returning to the EM Stage, where another cycle of EM is performed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Split Stage",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "In this section we report and discuss development results for English and Turkish. We also report finaltest results for both languages. Results for the preprocessed segmentation are consistently used as a baseline. In order to isolate the effect of the rewrite rules, we also compare against results taken on a parallel set of experiments, run with all the same parameters but without rule-generated underlying morphemes, i.e. without morphemes of type u i . But before we get to these results, we will describe the conditions of our experiments. First we introduce the evaluation metrics and data used, and then detail any parameters set during development.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments and Results",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "We use two procedures for evaluation, described in the Morpho Challenge '05 and '07 Competition Reports (Kurimo et al., 2006; Kurimo et al., 2007) . Both procedures use gold-standards created with commercially available morphological analyzers for each language. Each procedure is associated with its own F-score-based measure.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 125,
"text": "(Kurimo et al., 2006;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 146,
"text": "Kurimo et al., 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Metrics",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The first was used in Morpho Challenge '05, and measures the extent to which boundaries match between the surface-layer of our segmentations and gold-standard surface segmentations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Metrics",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The second was used in Morpho Challenge '07 and measures the extent to which morphemes match between the underlying-layer of our segmentations and gold-standard underlying analyses. The F-score here is not actually on matched morphemes, but instead on matched morpheme-sharing word-pairs. A point is given whenever a morpheme-sharing wordpair in the gold-standard segmentation also shares morphemes in the test segmentation (for recall), and vice-versa for precision.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Metrics",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Training Data The data-sets used for training were provided by the Helsinki University of Technology in advance of the Morpho Challenge '07 and were downloaded by the authors from the contest website 7 . According to the website, they were compiled from the University of Leipzig Wortschatz Corpora.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Tokens Types English 3 \u00d7 10 6 6.22 \u00d7 10 7 3.85 \u00d7 10 5 Turkish 1 \u00d7 10 6 1.29 \u00d7 10 7 6.17 \u00d7 10 5 Test Data For final testing, we use the goldstandard data reserved for final evaluation in the Morpho Challenge '07 contest. The gold-standard consists of approximately 1.17 \u00d7 10 5 English and 3.87 \u00d7 10 5 Turkish analyzed words, roughly a tenth the size of training word-lists. Word pairs that exist in both the training and gold standard are used for evaluation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentences",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "There are two sets of parameters used in this experiment. First, there are parameters used to produce the initial segmentation. They were set as suggested in Cruetz and Lagus (2005) , with parameter b tuned on development data. Then there are parameters used for the main procedure. Here we have rewrite rules, numerical parameters, and one typology parameter. Rewrite rules and any orthographic features they use were culled from linguistic literature. We currently have 6 rules for English and 10 for Turkish; See Appendix A.1 for the full set of English rules used. Numerical parameters were set as suggested in Cruetz and Lagus (2004) , and following their lead we tuned b on development data; we show development results for the following values: b = 100, 300, and 500 (see Figure 3). Finally, as introduced in Section 2.2, we have a hand-set typology parameter that allows us to split prefixes or suffixes if the language has an agglutinative morphology. Since Turkish has agglutinative suffixation, we set this parameter to split suffixes for Turkish.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 158,
"end": 181,
"text": "Cruetz and Lagus (2005)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 615,
"end": 638,
"text": "Cruetz and Lagus (2004)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 779,
"end": 785,
"text": "Figure",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Parameters",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Development results were obtained by evaluating English and Turkish segmentations at several stages, and with several values of parameter b as shown in Figure 3 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 152,
"end": 160,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Development Results",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "Overall, our development results were very positive. For the surface-level evaluation, the largest F-score improvement was observed for English (Figure 3, Chart 1) , 63.75% to 68.99%, a relative F-score gain of 8.2% over the baseline segmentation. The Turkish result also improves to a similar degree, but it is only achieved after the model as been refined by splitting. For English we observe the improvement earlier, after the EM Stage. For the underlying-level evaluation, the largest F-score improvement was observed for Turkish (Chart 4), 31.37% to 54.86%, a relative F-score gain of over 74%.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 163,
"text": "(Figure 3, Chart 1)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Development Results",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "In most experiments with rules to generate underlying analyses (With Rules), the successive applications of EM and splitting result in improved results. Without rule-generated forms (No Rules) the results tend be negative compared to the baseline (see Figure 3, Chart 2), or mixed (Charts 1 and 4). When we look at recall and precision numbers directly, we observe that even without rules, the algorithm produces large recall boosts (especially after splitting). However, these boosts are accompanied by precision losses, which result in unchanged or lower F-scores.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 252,
"end": 258,
"text": "Figure",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Development Results",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "The exception is the underlying-level evaluation of English segmentations (Figure 3, Chart 3) . Here we observe a near-parity of F-score gains for segmentations produced with and without underlying morphemes derived by rule. One explanation is that the English initial segmentation is conservative and that coverage gains are the main reason for improved English scores. Creutz and Lagus (2005) note that the Morfessor EM approach often has better coverage than the MAP approach we use to produce the is Morfessor MAP, which was used as a reference method in the contest. MC Top is the top contestant. For our hybrid approach, we show the F-score obtained with and without using rewrite rules. The splitting parameter b was set to the best performing value seen in development evaluations (Tr. b = 100, En. b = 500).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 371,
"end": 394,
"text": "Creutz and Lagus (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 93,
"text": "(Figure 3, Chart 3)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Development Results",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "initial segmentation. Also, in English, allomorphy is not as extensive as in Turkish (see Chart 4) where precision losses are greater without rules, i.e. when not representing allomorphs by the same morpheme.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Development Results",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "Final test results, given in Table 2 , are mixed. For English, though we improve on our baseline and on Morfessor MAP trained by Creutz and Lagus, we are beaten by the top unsupervised Morpho Challenge contestant, entered by Delphine Bernhard (2007) . Bernhard's approach was purely unsupervised and did not explicitly account for allomorphic phenomena. There are several possible reasons why we were not the top performer here. Our splitting constraint for stems, which allows them to split into stems and chains of affixes, is suited for agglutinative morphologies. It does not seem particularly well suited to English morphology. Our rewrite-rules might also be improved. Finally, there may be other, more pressing barriers (besides allomorphy) to improving morpheme induction in English, like ambiguity between homographic morphemes. For Turkish, the story is very different. We observe our baseline segmentation going from 32.76% F-score to 54.54% when re-segmented using rules, a relative improvement of over 66%. Compared with the top unsupervised approach, Creutz and Lagus's Morfessor MAP, our F-score improvement is over 48%. The distance between our hybrid approach and unsupervised approaches emphasizes the problem allomorphy can be for a language like Turkish. Turkish inflectional suffixes, for instance, regularly undergo multiple spelling-rules and can have 10 or more variant forms. Knowing that these variants are all one morpheme makes a difference.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 234,
"end": 249,
"text": "Bernhard (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 36,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Final Test Results",
"sec_num": "3.5"
},
{
"text": "In this work we showed that we can use a small amount of knowledge in the form of context-sensitive rewrite rules to improve unsupervised segmentations for Turkish and English. This improvement can be quite large. On the morpheme-consistency measure used in the last Morpho Challenge, we observed an improvement of the Turkish segmentation of over 66% against the baseline, and 48% against the topof-the-line unsupervised approach.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Work in progress includes error analysis of the results to more closely examine the contribution of each rule, as well as developing rule sets for additional languages. This will help highlight various aspects of the most beneficial rules.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "There has been recent work on discovering allomorphic phenomena automatically (Dasgupta and Ng, 2007; Demberg, 2007) . It is hoped that our work can inform these approaches, if only by showing what variation is possible, and what is relevant to particular languages. For example, variation in inflectional suffixes, driven by vowel harmony and other phenomena, should be captured for a language like Turkish.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 101,
"text": "(Dasgupta and Ng, 2007;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 116,
"text": "Demberg, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "Future work involves attempting to learn broadcoverage underlying morphology without the handcoded element of the current work. This might involve employing aspects of the most beneficial rules as variable features in rule-templates. It is hoped that we can start to derive underlying morphemes through processes (rules, constraints, etc) suggested by these templates, and possibly learn instantiations of templates from seed corpora. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "In this work we focus on orthographic allomorphy.2 Ordered rewrite rules, when restricted from applying to their own output, have similar expressive capabilities to Koskenniemi's two-level constraints. Both define regular relations on strings, both can be compiled into lexical transducers, and both have been used in finite-state analyzers(Karttunen and Beesley, 2001). We choose ordered rules because they are easier to write given our task and resources.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Some special substitution rules, like vowel harmony in Turkish and Finnish, have a spreading effect, moving from syllable to syllable within and beyond morphboundaries. In our formulation, these rules differ from other rules by not being conditioned on a morphboundary.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The main difference between our procedure andCreutz and Lagus (2004) is that we allow splitting into two or more morphemes (see Step 7) while they allow binary splits only.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "http://www.cis.hut.fi/morphochallenge2007/datasets.shtml",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Simple morpheme labeling in unsupervised morpheme analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Delphine",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bernhard",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Working Notes for the CLEF 2007 Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Delphine Bernhard. 2007. Simple morpheme label- ing in unsupervised morpheme analysis. In Work- ing Notes for the CLEF 2007 Workshop, Budapest, Hungary.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "The revised wordframe model for the filipino language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charibeth",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Solomon",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Cheng",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "See",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Journal of Research in Science, Computing and Engineering",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Charibeth K. Cheng and Solomon L. See. 2006. The revised wordframe model for the filipino language. Journal of Research in Science, Computing and Engineering.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "The Sound Pattern of English",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Noam",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chomsky",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Morris",
"middle": [],
"last": "Halle",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1968,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Harper & Row, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Unsupervised discovery of morphemes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mathias",
"middle": [],
"last": "Creutz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Krista",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lagus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proc. Workshop on Morphological and Phonological Learning of ACL'02",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "21--30",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mathias Creutz and Krista Lagus. 2002. Unsuper- vised discovery of morphemes. In Proc. Work- shop on Morphological and Phonological Learning of ACL'02, pages 21-30, Philadelphia. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Induction of a simple morphology for highly inflecting languages",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mathias",
"middle": [],
"last": "Creutz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Krista",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lagus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proc. 7th Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology (SIG-PHON)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "43--51",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mathias Creutz and Krista Lagus. 2004. Induction of a simple morphology for highly inflecting lan- guages. In Proc. 7th Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology (SIG- PHON), pages 43-51, Barcelona.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Inducing the morphological lexicon of a natural language from unannotated text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mathias",
"middle": [],
"last": "Creutz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Krista",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lagus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proc. International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Adaptive Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (AKRR'05)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "106--113",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mathias Creutz and Krista Lagus. 2005. Inducing the morphological lexicon of a natural language from unannotated text. In Proc. International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Adaptive Knowl- edge Representation and Reasoning (AKRR'05), pages 106-113, Espoo, Finland.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Morfessor in the morpho challenge",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mathias",
"middle": [],
"last": "Creutz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Krista",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lagus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proc. PASCAL Challenge Workshop on Unsupervised Segmentation of Words into Morphemes",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mathias Creutz and Krista Lagus. 2006. Morfessor in the morpho challenge. In Proc. PASCAL Chal- lenge Workshop on Unsupervised Segmentation of Words into Morphemes, Venice, Italy.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "High performance, language-independent morphological segmentation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sajib",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dasgupta",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Vincent",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ng",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proc. NAACL'07",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sajib Dasgupta and Vincent Ng. 2007. High perfor- mance, language-independent morphological seg- mentation. In Proc. NAACL'07.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Unsupervised Language Acquisition",
"authors": [
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carl",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "De Marcken",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Carl G. de Marcken. 1996. Unsupervised Language Acquisition. Ph.D. thesis, Massachussetts Insti- tute of Technology, Boston.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Inference of variable-length linguistic and acoustic units by multigrams",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sabine",
"middle": [],
"last": "Deligne",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bimbot",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Speech Communication",
"volume": "23",
"issue": "",
"pages": "223--241",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sabine Deligne and Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Bimbot. 1997. Inference of variable-length linguistic and acoustic units by multigrams. Speech Communication, 23:223-241.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "A language-independent unsupervised model for morphological segmentation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Vera",
"middle": [],
"last": "Demberg",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proc. ACL'07",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Vera Demberg. 2007. A language-independent un- supervised model for morphological segmentation. In Proc. ACL'07.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Unsupervised learning of the morphology of a natural language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Goldsmith",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "27",
"issue": "",
"pages": "153--198",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "John Goldsmith. 2001. Unsupervised learning of the morphology of a natural language. Computational Linguistics, 27.2:153-198.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "A short history of two-level morphology",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Lauri",
"middle": [],
"last": "Karttunen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kenneth",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Beesley",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proc. ESSLLI",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lauri Karttunen and Kenneth R. Beesley. 2001. A short history of two-level morphology. In Proc. ESSLLI 2001.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Unsupervised segmentation of words into morphemes -Morpho Challenge 2005, an introduction and evaluation report",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mikko",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kurimo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mathias",
"middle": [],
"last": "Creutz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Matti",
"middle": [],
"last": "Varjokallio",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ebru",
"middle": [],
"last": "Arisoy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Murat",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sara\u00e7lar",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proc. PASCAL Challenge Workshop on Unsupervised Segmentation of Words into Morphemes",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mikko Kurimo, Mathias Creutz, Matti Varjokallio, Ebru Arisoy, and Murat Sara\u00e7lar. 2006. Unsu- pervised segmentation of words into morphemes - Morpho Challenge 2005, an introduction and eval- uation report. In Proc. PASCAL Challenge Work- shop on Unsupervised Segmentation of Words into Morphemes, Venice, Italy.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Unsupervised morpheme analysis evaluation by a comparison to a linguistic gold standard -Morpho Challenge",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mikko",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kurimo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mathias",
"middle": [],
"last": "Creutz",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Matti",
"middle": [],
"last": "Varjokallio",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Working Notes for the CLEF 2007 Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mikko Kurimo, Mathias Creutz, and Matti Var- jokallio. 2007. Unsupervised morpheme analysis evaluation by a comparison to a linguistic gold standard -Morpho Challenge 2007. In Working Notes for the CLEF 2007 Workshop, Budapest, Hungary.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "A hierarchical em approach to word segmentation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fuchun",
"middle": [],
"last": "Peng",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dale",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schuurmans",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proc. 4th Intl. Conference on Intel. Data Analysis (IDA)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "238--247",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fuchun Peng and Dale Schuurmans. 2001. A hier- archical em approach to word segmentation. In Proc. 4th Intl. Conference on Intel. Data Analysis (IDA), pages 238-247.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Knowledge-free induction of morphology using latent semantic analysis",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proc. CoNLL'00 and LLL'00",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "67--72",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Knowledge-free induction of morphology using la- tent semantic analysis. In Proc. CoNLL'00 and LLL'00, pages 67-72, Lisbon.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Knowledge-free induction of inflectional morphologies",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proc. NAACL'01",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Knowledge-free induction of inflectional morpholo- gies. In Proc. NAACL'01, Pittsburgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "A bayesian model for morpheme and paradigm identification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Matthew",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Snover",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brent",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proc. ACL'01",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "482--490",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Matthew G. Snover and Michael R. Brent. 2001. A bayesian model for morpheme and paradigm identification. In Proc. ACL'01, pages 482-490, Toulouse, France.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Modeling and Learning Multilingual Inflectional Morphology in a Minimally Supervised Framework",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wicentowski",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Richard Wicentowski. 2002. Modeling and Learn- ing Multilingual Inflectional Morphology in a Min- imally Supervised Framework. Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Minimally supervised morphological analysis by multimodal alignment",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yarowsky",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wicentowski",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proc. ACL'00",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David Yarowsky and Richard Wicentowski. 2000. Minimally supervised morphological analysis by multimodal alignment. In Proc. ACL'00.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Inducing multilingual text analysis tools via robust projection accross aligned corpora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yarowsky",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Grace",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ngai",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wicentowski",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proc. HLT'01",
"volume": "01",
"issue": "",
"pages": "161--168",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David Yarowsky, Grace Ngai, and Richard Wicen- towski. 2001. Inducing multilingual text analysis tools via robust projection accross aligned corpora. In Proc. HLT'01, volume HLT 01, pages 161-168, San Diego.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"text": "Flowchart showing the entire procedure.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"num": null,
"text": "Development results for the preprocessed initial segmentation (Baseline), and segmentations produced by our approach, first after the EM Stage (EM) and again after the Split Stage (SPL) with different values of parameter b. Rules that generate underlying analyses have either been included (With Rules), or left out (No Rules).",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"TABREF0": {
"content": "<table><tr><td>Tags Surface Segmentation</td><td>seat + s STM SUF</td><td>citi + es STM SUF</td><td>STM glass + es SUF</td><td>Features: VWL = vowel</td></tr><tr><td>Applicable Rule(s)</td><td/><td>\u00f8\u2192e / [+VWL] + _s y\u2192i / _ + [+ANY]</td><td>\u00f8\u2192e / [+SIB] + _s</td><td>ANY = any char. SIB = sibilant</td></tr><tr><td>Underlying Analyses</td><td>seat + s</td><td>city + s</td><td>glass + s</td><td>{s,sh,ch,...}</td></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": "When an underlying morpheme u i is associated to a surface morph s, we refer to s as an allomorph of",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
},
"TABREF1": {
"content": "<table><tr><td>Development Data The development gold-</td></tr><tr><td>standard for the surface metric was provided in</td></tr><tr><td>advance of Morpho Challenge '05 and consists of</td></tr><tr><td>surface segmentations for 532 English and 774</td></tr><tr><td>Turkish words.</td></tr><tr><td>The development gold-standard for the underlying</td></tr><tr><td>metric was provided in advance of Morpho Challenge</td></tr><tr><td>'07 and consists of morphological analyses for 410</td></tr><tr><td>English and 593 Turkish words.</td></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": "Training corpus sizes vary slightly, with 3 million English sentences and 1 million Turkish sentences.",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
},
"TABREF2": {
"content": "<table><tr><td>English</td><td>47.17</td><td>60.81</td><td>47.04</td><td>57.35</td><td>59.78</td></tr><tr><td>Turkish</td><td>37.10</td><td>29.23</td><td>32.76</td><td>31.10</td><td>54.54</td></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": "Hybrid:After Split MC Morf. MC Top Baseline No Rules With Rules",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
},
"TABREF3": {
"content": "<table/>",
"num": null,
"text": "Final test F-scores on the underlying morpheme measure used in Morpho Challenge '07. MC Morf.",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
},
"TABREF4": {
"content": "<table/>",
"num": null,
"text": "A.1 Rules Used For English e epenthesis before s suffix \u00f8 \u2192e / ..[+V] + _s \u00f8\u2192e / ..[+SIB] + _s long e deletion e \u2192\u00f8 / ..[+V][+C]_ + [+V] change y to i before suffix y \u2192i / ..[+C] +? _ + [+ANY] consonant gemination \u00f8 \u2192\u03b1[+STOP] / ..\u03b1[+STOP]_ + [+V] \u00f8 \u2192\u03b1[+STOP] / ..\u03b1[+STOP]_ + [+GLI]",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
},
"TABREF5": {
"content": "<table><tr><td>Base</td><td>EM</td><td colspan=\"2\">SPL:b=300 SPL:b=500</td></tr><tr><td>happen s</td><td>happen s</td><td>happ e n s</td><td>happen s</td></tr><tr><td>happier</td><td>happier</td><td>happi er</td><td>happi er</td></tr><tr><td>happiest</td><td>happiest</td><td>happ i est</td><td>happiest</td></tr><tr><td>happily</td><td>happily</td><td>happi ly</td><td>happi ly</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"3\">happiness happiness happi ness</td><td>happiness</td></tr></table>",
"num": null,
"text": "English RulesA.2 Example Segmentations",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
},
"TABREF6": {
"content": "<table/>",
"num": null,
"text": "Surface segmentations after preprocessing (Base), EM Stage (EM), and Split Stage (SPL)",
"type_str": "table",
"html": null
}
}
}
} |