Difference between revisions of "McCallum Bellare and Pereira 2005 A Conditional Random Field for Discriminatively-Trained Finite-State String Edit Distance"
(Created page with '== Citation == Andrew McCallum, Kedar Bellare and Fernando Pereira. A Conditional Random Field for Discriminatively-Trained Finite-State String Edit Distance. Conference on Unce…') |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
This [[Category::paper]] presents a discriminative string edit CRF. Conditional random fields outperform generative models for [[AddressesProblem::String Edit Distance | string edit distance]] prediction (such as those used in the work of [[RelatedPaper::Ristad_and_Yianilos_1997_Learning_String_Edit_Distance | Ristad and Yianilos]] and [[RelatedPaper::Bilenko_and_Mooney_2003_Adaptive_duplicate_detection_using_learnable_string_similarity_measures | Bilenko and Mooney]]) since they are able to use complex, arbitrary features over the input strings. As in the case of the generative models, this method does not require to specify the edit sequence (alignment) of the training strings, however, it does require negative input instances. | This [[Category::paper]] presents a discriminative string edit CRF. Conditional random fields outperform generative models for [[AddressesProblem::String Edit Distance | string edit distance]] prediction (such as those used in the work of [[RelatedPaper::Ristad_and_Yianilos_1997_Learning_String_Edit_Distance | Ristad and Yianilos]] and [[RelatedPaper::Bilenko_and_Mooney_2003_Adaptive_duplicate_detection_using_learnable_string_similarity_measures | Bilenko and Mooney]]) since they are able to use complex, arbitrary features over the input strings. As in the case of the generative models, this method does not require to specify the edit sequence (alignment) of the training strings, however, it does require negative input instances. | ||
− | The CRF | + | The results show that the CRF approach outperforms the generative models on all but one of the estimated classes. |
− | == | + | == Method == |
+ | The CRF presented in this paper is based on a finite state machine (FST) model with a single start state and two sets of disjoint states, <math>S_1</math> and <math>S_0</math>, representing 'matching' and 'non-matching' string pairs, respectively. | ||
+ | |||
+ | An alignment under this model is a four-tuple | ||
+ | |||
+ | <math> | ||
+ | a = \langle e,ix,jy,q \rangle | ||
+ | </math> | ||
+ | |||
+ | where, | ||
+ | * <math>e=e_1, \dots, e_k</math>. These indicate the sequence of edit-operations for this alignment. | ||
+ | Each edit operation <math>e_p</math> consumes a portion of either one or both of the input strings, up to position <math>i_p</math> or <math>j_p</math>. | ||
+ | * <math>ix=i_1, \dots, i_k</math>. This is the non-decreasing positions in the input string '''x''', associated with the edit operations in <math>e</math>. | ||
+ | * <math>jy=j_1, \dots, j_k</math>. This is the non-decreasing positions in the input string '''y''', associated with the edit operations in <math>e</math>. | ||
+ | * <math>q=q_1, \dots, q_k</math>. This is the set of states in the FST models of this alignment. By construction, either <math> q \subseteq S_1 </math> (indicating a sequence of match states), or <math> q \subseteq S_0 </math> (indicating a sequence of non-match states). | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Let <math> a_p = \langle e_p,i_p,j_p,q_p \rangle </math>, be the <math>p</math>-th position in the alignment. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Given the strings '''x''', and '''y''', the probability of an alignment '''a''' is given by | ||
+ | |||
+ | <math> | ||
+ | p(\mathbf{a}||\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}) = \frac{1}{Z_{x,y}}\prod^{|a|}_{i=1} \Phi(a_{i-1},a_i,\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}) | ||
+ | </math> |
Revision as of 18:41, 29 November 2011
Contents
Citation
Andrew McCallum, Kedar Bellare and Fernando Pereira. A Conditional Random Field for Discriminatively-Trained Finite-State String Edit Distance. Conference on Uncertainty in AI (UAI'05), 2005.
Online
Summary
This paper presents a discriminative string edit CRF. Conditional random fields outperform generative models for string edit distance prediction (such as those used in the work of Ristad and Yianilos and Bilenko and Mooney) since they are able to use complex, arbitrary features over the input strings. As in the case of the generative models, this method does not require to specify the edit sequence (alignment) of the training strings, however, it does require negative input instances.
The results show that the CRF approach outperforms the generative models on all but one of the estimated classes.
Method
The CRF presented in this paper is based on a finite state machine (FST) model with a single start state and two sets of disjoint states, and , representing 'matching' and 'non-matching' string pairs, respectively.
An alignment under this model is a four-tuple
where,
- . These indicate the sequence of edit-operations for this alignment.
Each edit operation consumes a portion of either one or both of the input strings, up to position or .
- . This is the non-decreasing positions in the input string x, associated with the edit operations in .
- . This is the non-decreasing positions in the input string y, associated with the edit operations in .
- . This is the set of states in the FST models of this alignment. By construction, either (indicating a sequence of match states), or (indicating a sequence of non-match states).
Let , be the -th position in the alignment.
Given the strings x, and y, the probability of an alignment a is given by