2. l Nll l 3. l l 4. ll ll 5. lllllll N 6. l lll ll llll l 7.
Eisner[Eisner96] A B C DE root = AD + BD + B C+ Droot + D El TS(T)l
S(T) = (m, h) T s(m, h)l (m, h) T l S(T) Topt O(n3) 8. Google
N-gram PMIl Google Nl #(mh) m, hl #(m) ml Eisner s(m, h)T const 9.
10. 1. ll2.ll 3.ll l 11. 1.lll l PMIl580K 117M72Kl580K 13.4M20.5K
12. 2.l ll542M114M 68Kl542M1.66M77l 13. 3. l ll 14. 1 l PMIl 15. 1
2l l 16. 2lll 17. [ 05][ +06] (1)101101010001(2) 0.95 0.05 0.95
0.95 0.05 0.95 0.05 0.95 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.95(3) 0.99 0.01 0.99 0.89
0.18 0.85 0.19 0.95 0.00.00.0 0.99 (1)(2) SSC ( =0.95) (3)lll 18.
PMI [Zhou+11]l PMIl PMIGoogle l +1 ~ 2 19. l [Eisner96] J. M.
Eisner. Three New Probabilistic Models forDependency Parsing: An
Exploration. COLING 96.l [ 05] . . 05.l [+06] , , . . NLP 06.l
[Zhou+11] G. Zhou, J. Zhao, K. Liu, L. Cai. Exploiting Web-Derived
Selectional Preference to Improve StatisticalDependency Parsing.
ACL 11.
