Abstract

We identify four types of errors that unsupervised induction systems make and study each one in turn. Our contributions include (1) using a meta-model to analyze the incorrect biases of a model in a systematic way, (2) providing an efficient and robust method of measuring distance between two parameter settings of a model, and (3) showing that local optima issues which typically plague EM can be somewhat alleviated by increasing the number of training examples. We conduct our analyses on three models: the HMM, the PCFG, and a simple dependency model. 1

Citations