Papers › Depth-bounding is effective: Improvements and evaluation of unsupervised PCFG induction
Depth-bounding is effective: Improvements and evaluation of unsupervised PCFG induction
Lifeng Jin, Finale Doshi-Velez, Timothy Miller, William Schuler, Lane Schwartz
There have been several recent attempts to improve the accuracy of grammar induction systems by bounding the recursive complexity of the induction model (Ponvert et al., 2011; Noji and Johnson, 2016; Shain et al., 2016; Jin et al., 2018). Modern depth-bounded grammar inducers have been shown to be more accurate than early unbounded PCFG inducers, but this technique has never been compared against unbounded induction within the same system, in part because most previous depth-bounding models are built around sequence models, the complexity of which grows exponentially with the maximum allowed depth. The present work instead applies depth bounds within a chart-based Bayesian PCFG inducer (Johnson et al., 2007b), where bounding can be switched on and off, and then samples trees with and without bounding. Results show that depth-bounding is indeed significantly effective in limiting the search space of the inducer and thereby increasing the accuracy of the resulting parsing model. Moreover, parsing results on English, Chinese and German show that this bounded model with a new inference technique is able to produce parse trees more accurately than or competitively with state-of-the-art constituency-based grammar induction models.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections