Corrected Co-training for Statistical Parsers

Corrected co-training (Pierce & Cardie, 2001) and the closely related co-testing (Muslea et al., 2000) are active learning methods which exploit redundant views to reduce the cost of manually creating labeled training data. We extend these methods to statistical parsing algorithms for natural language. Because creating complex parse structures by hand is significantly more timeconsuming than selecting labels from a small set, it may be easier for the human to correct the learner’s partially accurate output rather than generate the complex label from scratch. The goal of our work is to minimize the number of corrections that the annotator must make. To reduce the human effort in correcting machine parsed sentences, we propose a novel approach, which we call one-sided corrected co-training and show that this method requires only a third as many manual annotation decisions as corrected co-training/co-testing to achieve the same improvement in performance.

[1]  David Yarowsky,et al.  Rule Writing or Annotation: Cost-efficient Resource Usage for Base Noun Phrase Chunking , 2000, ACL.

[2]  Rebecca Hwa,et al.  Sample Selection for Statistical Grammar Induction , 2000, EMNLP.

[3]  Claire Cardie,et al.  Limitations of Co-Training for Natural Language Learning from Large Datasets , 2001, EMNLP.

[4]  Anoop Sarkar,et al.  Combining labeled and unlabeled data in statistical natural language parsing , 2002 .

[5]  Yan Zhou,et al.  Enhancing Supervised Learning with Unlabeled Data , 2000, ICML.

[6]  Ralph Arnote,et al.  Hong Kong (China) , 1996, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project.

[7]  Jason Baldridge,et al.  Active learning for HPSG parse selection , 2003, CoNLL.

[8]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Example Selection for Bootstrapping Statistical Parsers , 2003, NAACL.

[9]  David A. Cohn,et al.  Improving generalization with active learning , 1994, Machine Learning.

[10]  Rayid Ghani,et al.  Analyzing the effectiveness and applicability of co-training , 2000, CIKM '00.

[11]  Michael Collins,et al.  Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing , 2003, CL.

[12]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  Selective Sampling with Redundant Views , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[13]  David D. Lewis,et al.  Heterogeneous Uncertainty Sampling for Supervised Learning , 1994, ICML.

[14]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  Active Learning with Strong and Weak Views: A Case Study on Wrapper Induction , 2003, IJCAI.

[15]  Shlomo Argamon,et al.  Minimizing Manual Annotation Cost in Supervised Training from Corpora , 1996, ACL.

[16]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Bootstrapping statistical parsers from small datasets , 2003, EACL.

[17]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  A Maximum-Entropy-Inspired Parser , 2000, ANLP.

[18]  Avrim Blum,et al.  The Bottleneck , 2021, Monopsony Capitalism.

[19]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  Active + Semi-supervised Learning = Robust Multi-View Learning , 2002, ICML.

[20]  H. Sebastian Seung,et al.  Selective Sampling Using the Query by Committee Algorithm , 1997, Machine Learning.

[21]  Beatrice Santorini,et al.  Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank , 1993, CL.

[22]  Martha Palmer,et al.  Facilitating Treebank Annotation Using a Statistical Parser , 2001, HLT.

[23]  Min Tang,et al.  Active Learning for Statistical Natural Language Parsing , 2002, ACL.

[24]  David Yarowsky,et al.  Unsupervised Word Sense Disambiguation Rivaling Supervised Methods , 1995, ACL.

[25]  Raymond J. Mooney,et al.  Active Learning for Natural Language Parsing and Information Extraction , 1999, ICML.