Dual decomposition for inference in natural language processing

author: Terry Koo, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT
published: Jan. 13, 2011,   recorded: December 2010,   views: 451
Categories
You might be experiencing some problems with Your Video player.

Slides

Slides
0:00 Dual Decomposition and Linear Programming Relaxations for Inference in Natural Laguage Processing
0:15 Inference: from Models to Predictions - 1
0:16 Inference: from Models to Predictions - 2
0:46 Inference: from Models to Predictions - 3
1:10 Inference: from Models to Predictions - 4
1:50 Non-Projective Dependency Parsing
2:33 Integration of a PCFG and an HMM
5:08 The MAP Problem in Markov Random Fields
5:41 Dual Decomposition - 1
5:59 Dual Decomposition - 2
6:24 Dual Decomposition - 3
6:39 Roadmap - 1
6:58 Non-Projective Dependency Parsing
8:38 Algorithm Outline - 1
9:14 Algorithm Outline - 2
9:22 Arc-Factored - 1
9:31 Arc-Factored - 2
9:33 Arc-Factored - 3
9:34 Arc-Factored - 4
9:35 Arc-Factored - 5
9:44 Arc-Factored - 6
9:44 Arc-Factored - 7
9:45 Arc-Factored - 8
9:46 Arc-Factored - 9
10:18 Sibling Models - 1
10:20 Sibling Models - 2
10:21 Sibling Models - 3
10:21 Sibling Models - 4
10:22 Sibling Models - 5
10:52 Sibling Models - 6
10:53 Sibling Models - 7
10:57 Sibling Models - 8
11:05 Thought Experiment: Individual Decoding - 1
11:18 Thought Experiment: Individual Decoding - 2
11:24 Thought Experiment: Individual Decoding - 3
11:34 Thought Experiment: Individual Decoding - 4
11:38 Thought Experiment: Individual Decoding - 5
11:45 Thought Experiment: Individual Decoding - 6
12:05 Thought Experiment Continued - 1
12:20 Thought Experiment Continued - 2
12:25 Thought Experiment Continued - 3
12:27 Thought Experiment Continued - 4
12:28 Thought Experiment Continued - 5
12:29 Thought Experiment Continued - 6
12:30 Thought Experiment Continued - 7
12:31 Thought Experiment Continued - 8
12:32 Thought Experiment Continued - 9
13:01 Dual Decomposition Idea - 1
13:24 Dual Decomposition Idea - 2
13:27 Dual Decomposition Structure - 1
13:50 Dual Decomposition Structure - 2
13:58 Dual Decomposition Structure - 3
14:13 Dual Decomposition Structure - 4
14:18 Dual Decomposition Structure - 5
14:27 Dual Decomposition Structure - 6
14:33 Dual Decomposition Structure - 7
14:49 Algorithm Sketch - 1
14:49 Algorithm Sketch - 2
14:50 Algorithm Sketch - 3
15:18 Algorithm Sketch - 4
15:29 Algorithm Sketch - 5
15:53 Individual Decoding - 1
16:42 Individual Decoding - 2
16:44 Individual Decoding - 3
16:50 Individual Decoding - 4
16:55 Individual Decoding - 5
17:16 Individual Decoding - 6
17:18 Individual Decoding - 7
17:23 Individual Decoding - 8
17:31 Individual Decoding - 9
17:32 Individual Decoding - 10
17:33 Individual Decoding - 11
17:37 Individual Decoding - 12
17:48 Guarantees - 1
17:55 Guarantees - 2
18:07 Extensions
18:37 Deriving the Algorithm - 1
19:20 Deriving the Algorithm - 2
19:55 A Subgradient Algorithm for Minimizing L (u)
20:49 Roadmap - 2
20:52 Experiments - 1
21:35 How often do we exactly solve the problem?
21:57 Accuracy
22:29 Comparison to Subproblems
22:58 Comparison to LP/ILP
23:53 Comparison to LP/ILP: Accuracy
24:08 Comparison to LP/ILP: Exactness and Speed
25:22 Roadmap - 3
25:23 Integrated Parsing and Tagging - 1
25:41 Integrated Parsing and Tagging - 2
25:48 HMM for Tagging - 1
26:00 HMM for Tagging - 2
26:04 CFG for Parsing - 1
26:11 CFG for Parsing - 2
26:15 Problem Definition
26:42 The Integrated Parsing and Tagging Problem - 1
27:15 The Integrated Parsing and Tagging Problem - 2
27:15 The Integrated Parsing and Tagging Problem - 3
27:16 The Integrated Parsing and Tagging Problem - 4
27:16 The Integrated Parsing and Tagging Problem - 5
27:17 CKY Parsing - 1
27:17 The Integrated Parsing and Tagging Problem - 6
27:18 CKY Parsing - 2
27:24 CKY Parsing - 3
27:27 CKY Parsing - 4
27:34 CKY Parsing - 5
27:36 CKY Parsing - 7
27:36 CKY Parsing - 6
27:38 CKY Parsing - 8
27:39 CKY Parsing - 9
27:39 CKY Parsing - 10
27:40 CKY Parsing - 11
27:40 CKY Parsing - 12
27:41 CKY Parsing - 13
27:42 Experiments - 2
29:38 Comparison to Subproblems
31:24 Combined Problem - 5

Related content

Report a problem or upload files

If you have found a problem with this lecture or would like to send us extra material, articles, exercises, etc., please use our ticket system to describe your request and upload the data.
Enter your e-mail into the 'Cc' field, and we will keep you updated with your request's status.
Lecture popularity: You need to login to cast your vote.
 
    Delicious Bibliography

Description

There has been a long history in combinatorial optimization of methods that exploit structure in complex problems, using methods such as dual decomposition or Lagrangian relaxation. These methods leverage the observation that complex inference problems can often be decomposed into efficiently solvable subproblems. In this talk I’ll describe work on inference algorithms for NLP based on dual decomposition. I’ll describe work on two problems: 1) Non-projective dependency parsing, where the inference problem is NP-hard for all but the simplest models. 2) Problems that involve ‘‘intersections’’ of two or more dynamic programming problems. These problems are solvable in polynomial time, but in practice the intersected dynamic programs are far too large to be practical. The algorithms are simple and efficient, building on standard combinatorial algorithms (e.g., dynamic programming, minimum spanning tree) as oracles; they provably solve a linear programming relaxation of the original problem; and empirically they very often lead to an exact solution to the original problem. The work is related to recent methods that use dual decomposition as an alternative to belief propagation for inference in Markov random fields. This is joint work with Tommi Jaakkola, Terry Koo, Sasha Rush, and David Sontag.

Link this page

Would you like to put a link to this lecture on your homepage?
Go ahead! Copy the HTML snippet !

Write your own review or comment:

make sure you have javascript enabled or clear this field: