An Efficient Probabilistic Context-Free Parsing Algorithm that Computes Prefix Probabilities

We describe an extension of Earley's parser for stochastic context-free grammars that computes the following quantities given a stochastic context-free grammar and an input string: a) probabilities of successive prefixes being generated by the grammar; b) probabilities of substrings being generated by the nonterminals, including the entire string being generated by the grammar; c) most likely (Viterbi) parse of the string; d) posterior expected number of applications of each grammar production, as required for reestimating rule probabilities. (a) and (b) are computed incrementally in a single left-to-right pass over the input. Our algorithm compares favorably to standard bottom-up parsing methods for SCFGs in that it works efficiently on sparse grammars by making use of Earley's top-down control structure. It can process any context-free rule format without conversion to some normal form, and combines computations for (a) through (d) in a single algorithm. Finally, the algorithm has simple extensions for processing partially bracketed inputs, and for finding partial parses and their likelihoods on ungrammatical inputs.Comment: 45 pages. Slightly shortened version to appear in Computational Linguistics 2

Precise n-gram Probabilities from Stochastic Context-free Grammars

We present an algorithm for computing n-gram probabilities from stochastic context-free grammars, a procedure that can alleviate some of the standard problems associated with n-grams (estimation from sparse data, lack of linguistic structure, among others). The method operates via the computation of substring expectations, which in turn is accomplished by solving systems of linear equations derived from the grammar. We discuss efficient implementation of the algorithm and report our practical experience with it.Comment: 12 pages, to appear in ACL-9

Comparing Human and Machine Errors in Conversational Speech Transcription

Recent work in automatic recognition of conversational telephone speech (CTS) has achieved accuracy levels comparable to human transcribers, although there is some debate how to precisely quantify human performance on this task, using the NIST 2000 CTS evaluation set. This raises the question what systematic differences, if any, may be found differentiating human from machine transcription errors. In this paper we approach this question by comparing the output of our most accurate CTS recognition system to that of a standard speech transcription vendor pipeline. We find that the most frequent substitution, deletion and insertion error types of both outputs show a high degree of overlap. The only notable exception is that the automatic recognizer tends to confuse filled pauses ("uh") and backchannel acknowledgments ("uhhuh"). Humans tend not to make this error, presumably due to the distinctive and opposing pragmatic functions attached to these words. Furthermore, we quantify the correlation between human and machine errors at the speaker level, and investigate the effect of speaker overlap between training and test data. Finally, we report on an informal "Turing test" asking humans to discriminate between automatic and human transcription error cases

Processing Unification-based Grammars in a Connectionist Framework

We present an approach to the processing of unification-based grammars in the connectionist paradigm. The method involves two basic steps: (1) Translation of a grammar's rules into a set of structure fragments, and (2) encoding these fragments in a connectionist network such that unification and rule application can take place by spreading activation. Feature structures are used to constrain sentence generation by semantic and/or grammatical properties. The method incorporates a general model of unification in connectionist networks. INTRODUCTION In recent years connectionist models have achieved notable results in modeling various aspect of perception and cognition. Although natural language processing has not been among the most prominent of its applications, there are a fair number of connectionist models of both language analysis and generation (Charniak & Santos, 1987; Cottrell, 1985; Dell, 1985; Fanty, 1985; Gasser, 1988; Kalita & Shastri, 1987; McClelland & Kawamoto, 1986). Ho..