Simple training of dependency parsers via structured boosting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, significant progress has been made on learning structured predictors via coordinated training algorithms such as conditional random fields and maximum margin Markov networks. Unfortunately, these techniques are based on specialized training algorithms, are complex to implement, and expensive to run. We present a much simpler approach to training structured predictors by applying a boosting-like procedure to standard supervised training methods. The idea is to learn a local predictor using standard methods, such as logistic regression or support vector machines, but then achieve improved structured classification by ”boosting ” the influence of misclassified components after structured prediction, re-training the local predictor, and repeating. Further improvement in structured prediction accuracy can be achieved by incorporating ”dynamic ” features—i.e. an extension whereby the features for one predicted component can depend on the predictions already made for some other components. We apply our techniques to the problem of learning dependency parsers from annotated natural language corpora. By using logistic regression as an efficient base classifier (for predicting dependency links between word pairs), we are able to efficiently train a dependency parsing model, via structured boosting, that achieves state of the art results in English, and surpasses state of the art in Chinese. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".