Advertisement

Approximate Bit Vectors for Fast Unification

  • Matthew Skala
  • Gerald Penn
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6878)

Abstract

Bit vectors provide a way to compute the existence of least upper bounds in partial orders, which is a fundamental operation needed by any unification-based parser. However, bit vectors have seen relatively little adoption because of their length and associated speed disadvantages. We present a novel bit vector technique based on allowing one-sided errors; the resulting approximate bit vectors can be much shorter than the minimum lengths required by existing techniques that would provide exact answers. We give experimental results showing that our approximate vectors give accurate enough answers to be useful in practice.

Keywords

Partial Order Vector Length Statistical Machine Translation Maximal Type Stochastic Local Search 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aït-Kaci, H., Boyer, R.S., Lincoln, P., Nasr, R.: Efficient implementation of lattice operations. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 11(1), 115–146 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloom, B.H.: Space/time trade-offs in hash coding with allowable errors. Communications of the ACM 13(7), 422–426 (1970)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Copestake, A., Flickinger, D.: An open-source grammar development environment and broad-coverage English grammar using HPSG. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2000) (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fall, A.: Reasoning with Taxonomies. Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kiefer, B., Krieger, H.U., Carroll, J., Malouf, R.: A bag of useful techniques for efficient and robust parsing. In: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-ANNUAL 1999), pp. 473–480. ACL (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meurers, D., De Kuthy, K., Metcalf, V.: Modularity of grammatical constraints in hpsg-based grammar implementations. In: Proceedings of the ESSLLI Workshop on Ideas and strategies for multilingual grammar Engineering (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meurers, D., Penn, G., Richter, F.: A web-based instructional platform for constraint-based grammar formalisms and parsing. In: Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Effective Tools and Methodologies for Teaching NLP and CL (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Penn, G.: A Utility for Feature-based Grammatical Theories. Master’s thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Penn, G.: Optimising don’t-care nondeterminism with statistical information. Tech. Rep. 140, SFB 340, Tübingen (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pollard, C., Sag, I.: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Chicago (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Skala, M., Krakovna, V., Kramár, J., Penn, G.: A generalized-zero-preserving method for compact encoding of concept lattices. In: 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2010), pp. 1512–1521. ACL (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Talbot, D., Osborne, M.: Smoothed Bloom filter language models: Tera-scale LMs on the cheap. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), pp. 468–476 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Skala
    • 1
  • Gerald Penn
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations