Dynamic Feature Selection for Dependency Parsing He He, Hal Daum - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

dynamic feature selection for dependency parsing
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Dynamic Feature Selection for Dependency Parsing He He, Hal Daum - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dynamic Feature Selection for Dependency Parsing He He, Hal Daum III and Jason Eisner EMNLP 2013, Seattle Structured Prediction in NLP Part-of-Speech Tagging Parsing N N V Det N


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Dynamic Feature Selection for Dependency Parsing

He He, Hal Daumé III and Jason Eisner

EMNLP 2013, Seattle

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Structured Prediction in NLP

Fruit flies like a banana . 果 蝇 喜欢 香蕉 。 N ⟶ N ⟶ V ⟶ Det ⟶ N ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Fruit flies like a banana

summarization, name entity resolution and many more ...

Machine Translation Parsing Part-of-Speech Tagging $ Fruit flies like a banana

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Structured Prediction in NLP

Fruit flies like a banana . 果 蝇 喜欢 香蕉 。 N ⟶ N ⟶ V ⟶ Det ⟶ N ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Fruit flies like a banana

summarization, name entity resolution and many more ...

Machine Translation Parsing Part-of-Speech Tagging $ Fruit flies like a banana

Exponentially increasing search space Millions of features for scoring

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Structured Prediction in NLP

⋮ ⋮ ⋮

Fruit flies like a banana

⋮ ⋮

N V D N V D N V D N V D N V D a banana like flies Fruit $

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Structured Prediction in NLP

⋮ ⋮ ⋮

Fruit flies like a banana

⋮ ⋮

N V D N V D N V D N V D N V D a banana like flies Fruit $

token left token right token in-between token stem form bigram tag coarse tag length direction ...

Feature templates per edge

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Structured Prediction in NLP

⋮ ⋮ ⋮

Fruit flies like a banana

⋮ ⋮

N V D N V D N V D N V D N V D a banana like flies Fruit $

token left token right token in-between token stem form bigram tag coarse tag length direction ...

(head_token + mod_token) X (head_tag +mod_tag)

Feature templates per edge

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Structured Prediction in NLP

⋮ ⋮ ⋮

Fruit flies like a banana

⋮ ⋮

token left token right token in-between token stem form bigram tag coarse tag length direction ...

(head_token + mod_token) X (head_tag +mod_tag) N V D N V D N V D N V D N V D a banana like flies Fruit $

HUGE

Feature templates per edge

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Structured Prediction in NLP

⋮ ⋮ ⋮

Fruit flies like a banana

⋮ ⋮

N V D N V D N V D N V D N V D a banana like flies Fruit $

Do you need all features everywhere ?

token tag coarse tag length direction ...

Feature templates per edge

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Structured Prediction in NLP

⋮ ⋮ ⋮

Fruit flies like a banana

⋮ ⋮

a banana like flies Fruit $ N V D N V D N V D N V D N V D

token tag coarse tag length direction ...

Feature templates per edge

Do you need all features everywhere ?

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Structured Prediction in NLP

⋮ ⋮ ⋮

Fruit flies like a banana

⋮ ⋮

a banana like flies Fruit $ N V D N V D N V D N V D N V D

token tag coarse tag length direction ...

Feature templates per edge

Do you need all features everywhere ?

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Structured Prediction in NLP

⋮ ⋮ ⋮

Fruit flies like a banana

⋮ ⋮

a banana like flies Fruit $ N V D N V D N V D N V D N V D

token tag coarse tag length direction ...

Feature templates per edge

Dynamic Decisions

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Case Study: Dependency Parsing

Bulgarian Chinese English German Japanese Portuguese Swedish

1 2 3 4 5 6 Ours Baseline S p e e d u p

2x to 6x speedup with little loss in accuracy

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Graph-based Dependency Parsing

.

This time

,

the firms were ready

$

Scoring:

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Graph-based Dependency Parsing

.

This time

,

the firms were ready

$

Scoring:

firms were

length: 1 direction: right modifier_token: were head_token: firms head_tag: noun

And hundreds more!

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Graph-based Dependency Parsing

.

This time

,

the firms were ready

$

Decoding: find the highest-scoring tree

the

$

This time

,

firms were ready

.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

total time

MST Dependency Parsing

(1st-order projective)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

?

?

? ?

Find highest-scoring tree O(n3)

MST Dependency Parsing

(1st-order projective)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Average Sentence

10 20 30 40 50 60

find edge scores

Find highest-scoring tree O(n3)

Find edge scores

~268 feature templates ~76M features

MST Dependency Parsing

(1st-order projective)

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Add features only when necessary!

This the firms ready

score(This → ready) = score(the → firms) =

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Add features only when necessary!

This the firms ready

score(This → ready) = -0.23 score(the → firms) = 0.63

  • 0.23

+0.63

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Add features only when necessary!

This the firms ready

score(This → ready) = -0.13 score(the → firms) = 1.33

  • 0.23

+0.1 +0.63 +0.7

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Add features only when necessary!

This the firms ready

score(This → ready) = -0.13 score(the → firms) = 1.33

  • 0.23

+0.1 +0.63 +0.7 WINNER

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Add features only when necessary!

This the firms ready

score(This → ready) = -1.33 score(the → firms) = 1.33

  • 0.23

+0.1

  • 1.2

+0.63 +0.7 WINNER

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Add features only when necessary!

This the firms ready

score(This → ready) = -1.88 score(the → firms) = 1.33

  • 0.23

+0.1

  • 1.2
  • 0.55

+0.63 +0.7 WINNER LOSER

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Add features only when necessary!

This the firms ready

score(This → ready) = -1.88 score(the → firms) = 1.33

  • 0.23

+0.1

  • 1.2
  • 0.55

+0.63 +0.7

This is a structured problem! Should not look at scores independently.

WINNER LOSER

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26

Dynamic Dependency Parsing

1.Find the highest-scoring tree after adding some features fast non-projective decoding

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Dynamic Dependency Parsing

1.Find the highest-scoring tree after adding some features fast non-projective decoding 2.Only edges in the current best tree can win

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

Dynamic Dependency Parsing

1.Find the highest-scoring tree after adding some features fast non-projective decoding 2.Only edges in the current best tree can win are chosen by a classifier ≤ n decisions are killed because they fight with the winners

slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

Dynamic Dependency Parsing

1.Find the highest-scoring tree after adding some features fast non-projective decoding 2.Only edges in the current best tree can win are chosen by a classifier ≤ n decisions are killed because they fight with the winners

  • 3. Add features to undetermined edges by group
slide-30
SLIDE 30

30

Dynamic Dependency Parsing

1.Find the highest-scoring tree after adding some features fast non-projective decoding 2.Only edges in the current best tree can win are chosen by a classifier ≤ n decisions are killed because they fight with the winners

  • 3. Add features to undetermined edges by group

Max # of iterations = # of feature groups

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

+ first feature group 51 gray edges with unknown fate... 5 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

slide-32
SLIDE 32

32

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

51 gray edges with unknown fate... 5 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Non-projective decoding to find new 1-best tree

slide-33
SLIDE 33

33

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

50 gray edges with unknown fate... 5 features per gray edge Classifier picks winners among the blue edges

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

44 gray edges with unknown fate... 5 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Remove losers in conflict with the winners

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

44 gray edges with unknown fate... 5 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Remove losers in conflict with the winners

slide-36
SLIDE 36

36

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

+ next feature group 44 gray edges with unknown fate... 27 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

+ next feature group 44 gray edges with unknown fate... 27 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Non-projective decoding to find new 1-best tree

slide-38
SLIDE 38

38

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

42 gray edges with unknown fate... 27 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Classifier picks winners among the blue edges

slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

31 gray edges with unknown fate... 27 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Remove losers in conflict with the winners

slide-40
SLIDE 40

40

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

31 gray edges with unknown fate... 27 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Remove losers in conflict with the winners

slide-41
SLIDE 41

41

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

+ next feature group 31 gray edges with unknown fate... 74 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

slide-42
SLIDE 42

42

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

31 gray edges with unknown fate... 74 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Non-projective decoding to find new 1-best tree

slide-43
SLIDE 43

43

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

28 gray edges with unknown fate... 74 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Classifier picks winners among the blue edges

slide-44
SLIDE 44

44

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

8 gray edges with unknown fate... 74 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Remove losers in conflict with the winners

slide-45
SLIDE 45

45

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

8 gray edges with unknown fate... 74 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Remove losers in conflict with the winners

slide-46
SLIDE 46

46

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

+ next feature group 8 gray edges with unknown fate... 107 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

slide-47
SLIDE 47

47

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

8 gray edges with unknown fate... 107 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Non-projective decoding to find new 1-best tree

slide-48
SLIDE 48

48

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

7 gray edges with unknown fate... 107 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Classifier picks winners among the blue edges

slide-49
SLIDE 49

49

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

3 gray edges with unknown fate... 107 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Remove losers in conflict with the winners

slide-50
SLIDE 50

50

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

3 gray edges with unknown fate... 107 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Remove losers in conflict with the winners

slide-51
SLIDE 51

51

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

+ last feature group 3 gray edges with unknown fate... 268 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

slide-52
SLIDE 52

52

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

gray edge with unknown fate... 268 features per gray edge

Current 1-best tree Winner edge Loser edge Undetermined edge (permanently in 1-best tree)

Projective decoding to find final 1-best tree

slide-53
SLIDE 53

53

What Happens During the Average Parse?

slide-54
SLIDE 54

54

Most edges win

  • r lose early

What Happens During the Average Parse?

slide-55
SLIDE 55

55

Some edges win late Most edges win

  • r lose early

What Happens During the Average Parse?

slide-56
SLIDE 56

56

Some edges win late Most edges win

  • r lose early

Later features are helpful

What Happens During the Average Parse?

slide-57
SLIDE 57

57

Some edges win late Linear increase in runtime Most edges win

  • r lose early

Later features are helpful

What Happens During the Average Parse?

slide-58
SLIDE 58

58

Summary: How Early Decisions Are Made

  • Winners

– Will definitely appear in the 1-best tree

  • Losers

– Have the same child as a winning edge – Form cycle with winning edges – Cross a winning edge (optional) – Share root ($) with a winning edge (optional)

  • Undetermined

– Add the next feature group to the remaining

gray edges

slide-59
SLIDE 59

59

Feature Template Ranking

  • Forward selection
slide-60
SLIDE 60

60

Feature Template Ranking

  • Forward selection

A 0.60 B 0.49 C 0.55

slide-61
SLIDE 61

61

Feature Template Ranking

  • Forward selection

A

1 A

A 0.60 B 0.49 C 0.55

slide-62
SLIDE 62

62

Feature Template Ranking

  • Forward selection

A&B 0.80 A&C 0.85 A

1 A

A 0.60 B 0.49 C 0.55

slide-63
SLIDE 63

63

Feature Template Ranking

  • Forward selection

A&B 0.80 A&C 0.85 A C

1 A 2 C

A 0.60 B 0.49 C 0.55

slide-64
SLIDE 64

64

Feature Template Ranking

  • Forward selection

A&B 0.80 A&C 0.85 A C A&C&B 0.9

1 A 3 B 2 C

A 0.60 B 0.49 C 0.55

slide-65
SLIDE 65

65

Feature Template Ranking

  • Forward selection

A&B 0.80 A&C 0.85 A C A&C&B 0.9

1 A 3 B 2 C

A 0.60 B 0.49 C 0.55

  • Grouping

head cPOS+ mod cPOS + in-between punct # 0.49 in-between cPOS 0.59 head POS + mod POS + in-between conj # 0.71 head POS + mod POS + in-between POS + dist 0.72 head token + mod cPOS + dist 0.80

⋮ ⋮ ⋮

slide-66
SLIDE 66

66

Feature Template Ranking

  • Forward selection

A&B 0.80 A&C 0.85 A C A&C&B 0.9

1 A 3 B 2 C

A 0.60 B 0.49 C 0.55

  • Grouping

head cPOS+ mod cPOS + in-between punct # 0.49 in-between cPOS 0.59 head POS + mod POS + in-between conj # 0.71 head POS + mod POS + in-between POS + dist 0.72 head token + mod cPOS + dist 0.80

⋮ ⋮ ⋮

+ ~0.1 + ~0.1

slide-67
SLIDE 67

67

Partition Feature List Into Groups

slide-68
SLIDE 68

68

How to pick the winners?

slide-69
SLIDE 69

69

How to pick the winners?

  • Learn a classifier
slide-70
SLIDE 70

70

How to pick the winners?

  • Learn a classifier
  • Features

– Currently added parsing features – Meta-features -- confidence of a prediction

slide-71
SLIDE 71

71

How to pick the winners?

  • Learn a classifier
  • Features

– Currently added parsing features – Meta-features -- confidence of a prediction

  • Training examples

– Input: each blue edge in current 1-best tree – Output: is the edge in the gold tree? If so,

we want it to win!

slide-72
SLIDE 72

72

Classifier Features

  • Currently added parsing features
  • Meta-features

– : …, 0.5, 0.8, 0.85

(scores are normalized by the sigmoid function)

– Margins to the highest-scoring competing edge – Index of the next feature group

the firms

.

This time the firms were $

0.72 0.65 0.30 0.23 0.12

slide-73
SLIDE 73

73

Classifier Features

  • Currently added parsing features
  • Meta-features

– : …, 0.5, 0.8, 0.85

(scores are normalized by the sigmoid function)

– Margins to the highest-scoring competing edge – Index of the next feature group

the firms

.

This time the firms were $

0.72 0.65 0.30 0.23 0.12

slide-74
SLIDE 74

74

Classifier Features

  • Currently added parsing features
  • Meta-features

– : …, 0.5, 0.8, 0.85

(scores are normalized by the sigmoid function)

– Margins to the highest-scoring competing edge – Index of the next feature group

the firms

.

This time the firms were $

0.72 0.65 0.30 0.23 0.12

Dynamic Features

slide-75
SLIDE 75

75

How To Train With Dynamic Features

  • Training examples are not fixed in advance!
  • Winners/losers from stages < k affect:

– Set of edges to classify at stage k – The dynamic features of those edges at stage k

  • Bad decisions can cause future errors
slide-76
SLIDE 76

76

How To Train With Dynamic Features

  • Training examples are not fixed in advance!!
  • Winners/losers from stages < k affect:

– Set of edges to classify at stage k – The dynamic features of those edges at stage k

  • Bad decisions can cause future errors

Reinforcement / Imitation Learning

  • Dataset Aggregation (DAgger) (Ross et al., 2011)

– Iterates between training and running a model – Learns to recover from past mistakes

slide-77
SLIDE 77

77

Upper Bound of Our Performance

  • “Labels”

– Gold edges always win – 96.47% UAS with 2.9% first-order features

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

.

This time

,

the firms were ready $

slide-78
SLIDE 78

78

How To Train Our Parser

1.Train parsers (non-projective, projective) using all features 2.Rank and group feature templates 3.Iteratively train a classifier to decide winners/losers

slide-79
SLIDE 79

79

Experiment

  • Data

– Penn Treebank: English – CoNLL-X: Bulgarian, Chinese, German, Japanese,

Portuguese, Swedish

  • Parser

– MSTParser (McDonald et al., 2006)

  • Dynamically-trained Classifier

– LibLinear (Fan et al., 2008)

slide-80
SLIDE 80

80

Dynamic Feature Selection Beats Static Forward Selection

slide-81
SLIDE 81

81

Dynamic Feature Selection Beats Static Forward Selection

Add features as needed

Always add the next feature group to all edges

slide-82
SLIDE 82

82

Experiment: 1st-order 2x to 6x speedup

Bulgarian Chinese English German Japanese Portuguese Swedish

1 2 3 4 5 6 DynFS Baseline S p e e d u p

slide-83
SLIDE 83

83

Experiment: 1st-order ~0.2% loss in accuracy

Bulgarian Chinese English German Japanese Portuguese Swedish

99.3% 99.4% 99.5% 99.6% 99.7% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.1% 100.2% 100.3% DynFS Baseline R e l a t i v e a c c u r a c y

relative accuracy=accuracy of the pruning parser accuracy of the full parser

slide-84
SLIDE 84

84

Second-order Dependency Parsing

were ready

.

  • Features depend on the

siblings as well

  • First-order:
  • O(n2) substructure to score
  • Second-order:
  • O(n3) substructure to score

~380 feature templates ~96M features

  • Decoding: still O(n3)

the

$

This time

,

firms were ready

.

slide-85
SLIDE 85

85

Experiment: 2nd-order 2x to 8x speedup

Bulgarian Chinese English German Japanese Portuguese Swedish

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 DynFS Baseline S p e e d u p

slide-86
SLIDE 86

86

Experiment: 2nd-order ~0.3% loss in accuracy

Bulgarian Chinese English German Japanese Portuguese Swedish

99.3% 99.4% 99.5% 99.6% 99.7% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.1% 100.2% 100.3% DynFS Baseline R e l a t i v e a c c u r a c y

slide-87
SLIDE 87

87

Ours vs Vine Pruning (Rush and Petrov, 2012)

  • Vine pruning: a very fast parser that speeds

up using orthogonal techniques

– Start with short edges (fully scored) – Add long edges in if needed

  • Ours

– Start with all edges (partially scored) – Quickly remove unneeded edges

  • Could be combined for further speedup!
slide-88
SLIDE 88

88

VS Vine Pruning: 1st-order comparable performance

Bulgarian Chinese English German Japanese Portuguese Swedish

1 2 3 4 5 6 DynFS VineP Baseline S p e e d u p

slide-89
SLIDE 89

89

VS Vine Pruning: 1st-order

Bulgarian Chinese English German Japanese Portuguese Swedish

99.3% 99.4% 99.5% 99.6% 99.7% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.1% 100.2% 100.3% DynFS VineP Baseline R e l a t i v e a c c u r a c y

slide-90
SLIDE 90

90

VS Vine Pruning: 2nd-order

Bulgarian Chinese English German Japanese Portuguese Swedish

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 DynFS VineP Baseline S p e e d u p

slide-91
SLIDE 91

91

VS Vine Pruning: 2nd-order

Bulgarian Chinese English German Japanese Portuguese Swedish

99.3% 99.4% 99.5% 99.6% 99.7% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.1% 100.2% 100.3% DynFS VineP Baseline R e l a t i v e a c c u r a c y

slide-92
SLIDE 92

92

Conclusion

  • Feature computation is expensive in

structured prediction

  • Commitment should be made dynamically
  • Early commitment to edges reduce both

searching and scoring time

  • Can be used in other feature-rich models for

structured prediction

slide-93
SLIDE 93

93

Backup Slides

slide-94
SLIDE 94

94

Static dictionary pruning (Rush and Petrov, 2012)

VB CD: → 18 VB CD: ← 3 NN VBG: → 22 NN VBG: ← 11 ... .

This time

,

the firms were ready $

slide-95
SLIDE 95

95

Reinforcement Learning 101

  • Markov Decision Process (MDP)

– State: all the information helping us to make

decisions

– Action: things we choose to do – Reward: criteria for evaluating actions – Policy: the “brain” that makes the decision

  • Goal

– Maximize the expected future reward

slide-96
SLIDE 96

96

Policy Learning

π ( + context) = add / lock

  • Markov Decision Process (MDP)

– reward = accuracy + λ∙speed

  • Reinforcement learning

– Delayed reward – Long time to converge

  • Imitation learning

– Mimic the oracle – Reduced to supervised classification problem

the firms

slide-97
SLIDE 97

97

Imitation Learning

  • Oracle

– (near) optimal performance – generate target action in any given state

π ( + context) = lock

the firms time

,

the

π ( + context) = add

...

Binary classifier

slide-98
SLIDE 98

98

Dataset Aggregation (DAgger)

  • Collect data from the oracle only

– Different distribution at training and test time

  • Iterative policy training
  • Correct the learner's mistake
  • Obtain a policy performs well under its own policy

distribution

slide-99
SLIDE 99

99

Experiment (1st-order)

Bulgarian Chinese English German Japanese Portuguese Swedish

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% DynFS F e a t u r e c

  • s

t

cost= # feature templates used total # feature templates on the statically pruned graph

slide-100
SLIDE 100

100

Experiment (2nd-order)

Bulgarian Chinese English German Japanese Portuguese Swedish

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% DynFS F e a t u r e c

  • s

t

slide-101
SLIDE 101

101

Second-order Parsing

.

slide-102
SLIDE 102

102

Second-order Parsing

.