From e1458e933f41a95bb5f98aeffbc15242ef7752f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: desaicwtf Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:24:10 +0000 Subject: PR report initial git-svn-id: https://ws10smt.googlecode.com/svn/trunk@535 ec762483-ff6d-05da-a07a-a48fb63a330f --- report/pr-clustering/EMdigram.pdf | Bin 0 -> 9620 bytes report/pr-clustering/posterior.tex | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+) create mode 100644 report/pr-clustering/EMdigram.pdf create mode 100644 report/pr-clustering/posterior.tex (limited to 'report/pr-clustering') diff --git a/report/pr-clustering/EMdigram.pdf b/report/pr-clustering/EMdigram.pdf new file mode 100644 index 00000000..4f0ab010 Binary files /dev/null and b/report/pr-clustering/EMdigram.pdf differ diff --git a/report/pr-clustering/posterior.tex b/report/pr-clustering/posterior.tex new file mode 100644 index 00000000..7cede80b --- /dev/null +++ b/report/pr-clustering/posterior.tex @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ +\chapter{Posterior Regularization} +Posterior regularization is an alternative way of clustering the phrases. +Unlike a Baysian approach where intuitions about the data are expressed through the priors, posterior regularization imposes constraints on posterior distributions of the data. + +In this chapter , we will introduce a basic clustering model with EM +and look at shortcomings of the basic model. This will motivate us for +more complicated posterior regularized models. +\section{Phrase Clustering Model} +As a brief recap, the clustering problem we are working with +is to label phrases with $K$ induced categories, where +$K$ is picked manually. +Phrases are obtained from bi-text data. +We also look at context + words before and after +phrases as cues for clustering. +The relationship between phrases, contexts and categories are +represented with a generative model shown in +Figure \ref{fig:EM}: a phrase picks a +category and then that category generates the contex for the phrase. + +\begin{figure}[h] + \centering + \includegraphics[width=3.5in]{EMdigram} + \caption{Basic Phrase Clustering Model} + \label{fig:EM} +\end{figure} + +The joint probability of a category $z$ and a context $\bf{c}$ +given a phrase $\bf{p}$ is +\[ +P(z,\bf{c}|\bf{p})=P(z|\bf{p})P(\bf{c}|z). +\] +$P(z|\bf{p})$ is distribution of categories given a phrase. +This can be learned from data. +$P(\bf{c}|z)$ is distribution of context given a category. +Since a context usually contains multiple slots for words, we further +decompose this distribution into independent distributions at +each slot. For example, suppose a context consists of two positions +before and after the phrase. Denote these words as +$c_{-2},c_{-1},c_1,c_2$. +Use $P_{-2},P_{-1},P_1,P_2$ to denote distributions of words at each +position, $P(\bf{c}|z)$ is decomposed as +\[ +P(\bf{c}|z)=P_{-2}(c_{-2}|z)P_{-1} +(c_{-1}|z)P_1(c_1|z)P_2(c_2|z). +\] +The posterior probability of a category given a phrase +and a context can be computed by normalizing the joint probability: +\[ +P(z|\bf{p},\bf{c})=\frac{P(z,\bf{c}|\bf{p})} +{\sum_{i=1,K}P(i,\bf{c}|\bf{p})}. +\] +With the mechanisms to compute the posterior probabilities, we can +apply EM to learn all the probabilities. +\section{Sparsity Constraints} +A common linguistic intuition we have about the phrase +clustering problem is that a phrase should be put into very +few categories, e.g. a verb phrase is unlikely to be used as +a noun phrase. In other words, the categorization of +a phrase should be sparse. +The generative model we proposed above with EM +allows a phrase to be labelled with many tags. As we observed +from the output, EM is using more categories than we wanted for +each phrase. +Posterior regularization +provides a way to enforce sparsity \citep{ganchev:penn:2009}. +The constraint we use here is called $l_1/ l_\infty$ +regularization. \ No newline at end of file -- cgit v1.2.3