File size: 71,096 Bytes
6fa4bc9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 | {
"paper_id": "P01-1044",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:29:45.420099Z"
},
"title": "Parsing with Treebank Grammars: Empirical Bounds, Theoretical Models, and the Structure of the Penn Treebank",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Stanford University Stanford",
"location": {
"postCode": "94305-9040",
"region": "CA"
}
},
"email": "klein@cs.stanford.edu"
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Stanford University Stanford",
"location": {
"postCode": "94305-9040",
"region": "CA"
}
},
"email": "manning\u00a1@cs.stanford.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "This paper presents empirical studies and closely corresponding theoretical models of the performance of a chart parser exhaustively parsing the Penn Treebank with the Treebank's own CFG grammar. We show how performance is dramatically affected by rule representation and tree transformations, but little by top-down vs. bottom-up strategies. We discuss grammatical saturation, including analysis of the strongly connected components of the phrasal nonterminals in the Treebank, and model how, as sentence length increases, the effective grammar rule size increases as regions of the grammar are unlocked, yielding super-cubic observed time behavior in some configurations. \u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 \u00a7 \u00a9 worst-case time bound for exhaustively parsing arbitrary context-free grammars. In what follows, we do not make use of the probabilistic aspects of the grammar or parser.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P01-1044",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "This paper presents empirical studies and closely corresponding theoretical models of the performance of a chart parser exhaustively parsing the Penn Treebank with the Treebank's own CFG grammar. We show how performance is dramatically affected by rule representation and tree transformations, but little by top-down vs. bottom-up strategies. We discuss grammatical saturation, including analysis of the strongly connected components of the phrasal nonterminals in the Treebank, and model how, as sentence length increases, the effective grammar rule size increases as regions of the grammar are unlocked, yielding super-cubic observed time behavior in some configurations. \u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 \u00a7 \u00a9 worst-case time bound for exhaustively parsing arbitrary context-free grammars. In what follows, we do not make use of the probabilistic aspects of the grammar or parser.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "This paper originated from examining the empirical performance of an exhaustive active chart parser using an untransformed treebank grammar over the Penn Treebank. Our initial experiments yielded the surprising result that for many configurations empirical parsing speed was super-cubic in the sentence length. This led us to look more closely at the structure of the treebank grammar. The resulting analysis builds on the presentation of Charniak (1996) , but extends it by elucidating the structure of non-terminal interrelationships in the Penn Treebank grammar. On the basis of these studies, we build simple theoretical models which closely predict observed parser performance, and, in particular, explain the originally observed super-cubic behavior.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 439,
"end": 454,
"text": "Charniak (1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We used treebank grammars induced directly from the local trees of the entire WSJ section of the Penn Treebank (Marcus et al., 1993 ) (release 3). For each length and parameter setting, 25 sentences evenly distributed through the treebank were parsed. Since we were parsing sentences from among those from which our grammar was derived, coverage was never an is-sue. Every sentence parsed had at least one parse -the parse with which it was originally observed. 1 The sentences were parsed using an implementation of the probabilistic chart-parsing algorithm presented in (Klein and Manning, 2001) . In that paper, we present a theoretical analysis showing an The default settings are shown above in bold face. We do not discuss all possible combinations of these settings. Rather, we take the bottom-up parser using an untransformed grammar with trie rule encodings to be the basic form of the parser. Except where noted, we will discuss how each factor affects this baseline, as most of the effects are orthogonal. When we name a setting, any omitted parameters are assumed to be the defaults.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 131,
"text": "(Marcus et al., 1993",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 462,
"end": 463,
"text": "1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 572,
"end": 597,
"text": "(Klein and Manning, 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In all cases, the grammar was directly induced from (transformed) Penn treebank trees. The transforms used are shown in figure 1. For all settings, functional tags and crossreferencing annotations were stripped. For NOTRANSFORM, no other modification was made. In particular, empty nodes (represented as -NONE-in the treebank) were turned into rules that generated the empty string ( ), and there was no collapsing of categories (such as PRT and ADVP) as is often done in parsing work (Collins, 1997, etc.) . For NOEMPTIES, empties were removed by pruning nonterminals which covered no overt words. For NOUNA-RIESHIGH, and NOUNARIESLOW, unary nodes were removed as well, by keeping only the tops and the bottoms of unary chains, respectively. 2",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 485,
"end": 506,
"text": "(Collins, 1997, etc.)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tree Transforms",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "The parser operates on Finite State Automata (FSA) grammar representations. We compiled grammar rules into FSAs in three ways: LISTs, TRIEs, and MINimized FSAs. An example of each representation is given in figure 2. For LIST encodings, each local tree type was encoded in its own, linearly structured FSA, corresponding to Earley (1970) -style dotted rules. For TRIE, there was one FSA per category, encoding together all rule types producing that category. For MIN, state-minimized FSAs were constructed from the trie FSAs. Note that while the rule encoding may dramatically affect the efficiency of a parser, it does not change the actual set of parses for a given sentence in any way. 3",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 324,
"end": 337,
"text": "Earley (1970)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Rule Encodings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "2 In no case were the nonterminal-to-word or TOP-tononterminal unaries altered.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Rule Encodings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "3 FSAs are not the only method of representing and compacting grammars. For example, the prefix compacted tries we use are the same as the common practice of ignoring items before the dot in a dotted rule (Moore, 2000) . Another ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 218,
"text": "(Moore, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Rule Encodings",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "In this section, we outline the observed performance of the parser for various settings. We frequently speak in terms of the following: span: a range of words in the chart, e.g., [1,3] 4 edge: a category over a span, e.g., NP:[1, 3] traversal: a way of making an edge from an active and a passive edge, e.g., NP:[1, 3] (NP DT.NN:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 179,
"end": 186,
"text": "[1,3] 4",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 229,
"text": "NP:[1,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 232,
"text": "3]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 315,
"text": "NP:[1,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 318,
"text": "3]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Observed Performance",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "[1,2] + NN:[2,3])",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Observed Performance",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "The parser has an \u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 \u00a5 \u00a7\u00a9 theoretical time bound, where \u00a5 is the number of words in the sentence to be parsed, is the number of nonterminal categories in the grammar and is the number of (active) states in the FSA encoding of the grammar. The time bound is derived from counting the number of traversals processed by the parser, each taking",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Time",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 \" ! # \u00a9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Time",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "time. In figure 3, we see the average time 5 taken per sentence length for several settings, with the empirical exponent (and correlation $ -value) from the best-fit simple power law model to the right. Notice that most settings show time growth greater than",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Time",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "\u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 % \u00a5 \u00a7\u00a9 . Although, \u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 % \u00a5 \u00a7\u00a9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Time",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "is simply an asymptotic bound, there are good explanations for the observed behavior. There are two primary causes for the super-cubic time values. The first is theoretically uninteresting. The parser is implemented in Java, which uses garbage collection for memory management. Even when there is plenty of memory for a parse's primary data structures, \"garbage collection thrashing\" can occur when logical possibility would be trie encodings which compact the grammar states by common suffix rather than common prefix, as in (Leermakers, 1992) . The savings are less than for prefix compaction. The ratio of the number of edges and traversals produced with a top-down strategy over the number produced with a bottom-up strategy (shown for TRIE-NOTRANSFORM, others are similar).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 526,
"end": 544,
"text": "(Leermakers, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Time",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "parsing longer sentences as temporary objects cause increasingly frequent reclamation. To see past this effect, which inflates the empirical exponents, we turn to the actual traversal counts, which better illuminate the issues at hand. Figures 4 (a) and (b) show the traversal curves corresponding to the times in figure 3. The interesting cause of the varying exponents comes from the \"constant\" terms in the theoretical bound. The second half of this paper shows how modeling growth in these terms can accurately predict parsing performance (see figures 9 to 13).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 236,
"end": 249,
"text": "Figures 4 (a)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Time",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The memory bound for the parser is",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Memory",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 & \u00a5 ' \u00a9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Memory",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": ". Since the parser is running in a garbage-collected environment, it is hard to distinguish required memory from utilized memory. However, unlike time and traversals which in practice can diverge, memory requirements match the number of edges in the chart almost exactly, since the large data structures are all proportional in size to the number of edges",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Memory",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "( 0 ) 1 \u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 & \u00a5 ' \u00a9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Memory",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": ". 6 Almost all edges stored are active edges (2 4 3 6 5 8 7 for sentences longer than 30 words), of which there can be",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Memory",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "\u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 9 & \u00a5 ' \u00a9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Memory",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": ": one for every grammar state and span. Passive edges, of which there can be \u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 9 \u00a5 ' @ \u00a9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Memory",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": ", one for every category and span, are a shrinking minority. This is because, while is bounded above by 27 in the treebank 7 (for spans 2 2), numbers in the thousands (see figure 12 ). Thus, required memory will be implicitly modeled when we model active edges in section 4.3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 181,
"text": "figure 12",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Memory",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Figure 4 (a) shows the effect of the tree transforms on traversal counts. The NOUNARIES settings are much more efficient than the others, however this efficiency comes at a price in terms of the utility of the final parse. For example, regardless of which NOUNARIES 6 A standard chart parser might conceivably require storing more than",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tree Transforms",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "A C B \u00a6 D F E",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tree Transforms",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "traversals on its agenda, but ours provably never does.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tree Transforms",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "7 This count is the number of phrasal categories with the introduction of a TOP label for the unlabeled top treebank nodes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tree Transforms",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "transform is chosen, there will be NP nodes missing from the parses, making the parses less useful for any task requiring NP identification. For the remainder of the paper, we will focus on the settings NOTRANS-FORM and NOEMPTIES.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Tree Transforms",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Figure 4 (b) shows the effect of each tree transform on traversal counts. The more compacted the grammar representation, the more time-efficient the parser is.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Encodings",
"sec_num": "3.4"
},
{
"text": "Figure 4 (c) shows the effect on total edges and traversals of using top-down and bottom-up strategies. There are some extremely minimal savings in traversals due to top-down filtering effects, but there is a corresponding penalty in edges as rules whose left-corner cannot be built are introduced. Given the highly unrestrictive nature of the treebank grammar, it is not very surprising that top-down filtering provides such little benefit. However, this is a useful observation about real world parsing performance. The advantages of top-down chart parsing in providing grammar-driven prediction are often advanced (e.g., Allen 1995:66), but in practice we find almost no value in this for broad coverage CFGs. While some part of this is perhaps due to errors in the treebank, a large part just reflects the true nature of broad coverage grammars: e.g., once you allow adverbial phrases almost anywhere and allow PPs, (participial) VPs, and (temporal) NPs to be adverbial phrases, along with phrases headed by adverbs, then there is very little useful top-down control left. With such a permissive grammar, the only real constraints are in the POS tags which anchor the local trees (see section 4.3). Therefore, for the remainder of the paper, we consider only bottom-up settings.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up",
"sec_num": "3.5"
},
{
"text": "In the remainder of the paper we provide simple models that nevertheless accurately capture the varying magnitudes and exponents seen for different grammar encodings and tree transformations. Since the",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Models",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "\u00a5 \u00a7 term of \u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 \u00a5 \u00a7\u00a9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Models",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "comes directly from the number of start, split, and end points for traversals, it is certainly not responsible for the varying growth rates. An initially plausible possibility is that the quantity bounded by the term is non-constant in \u00a5 in practice, because longer spans are more ambiguous in terms of the number of categories they can form. This turns out to be generally false, as discussed in section 4.2. Alternately, the effective term could be growing with \u00a5 , which turns out to be true, as discussed in section 4.3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Models",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The number of (possibly zero-size) spans for a sentence of length \u00a5 is fixed:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Models",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "\u00a3 % \u00a5 H G I ! \u00a9 P \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 Q G S R T \u00a9 V U T R",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Models",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": ". Thus, to be able to evaluate and model the total edge counts, we look to the number of edges over a given span.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Models",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The passive (or active) saturation of a given span is the number of passive (or active) edges over that span.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In the total time and traversal bound \u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 \u00a5 \u00a7\u00a9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ", the effective value of is determined by the active saturation, while the effective value of is determined by the passive saturation. An interesting fact is that the saturation of a span is, for the treebank grammar and sentences, essentially independent of what size sentence the span is from and where in the sentence the span begins. Thus, for a given span size, we report the average over all spans of that size occurring anywhere in any sentence parsed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition 1",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The reason that effective growth is not found in the component is that passive saturation stays almost constant as span size increases. However, the more interesting result is not that saturation is relatively constant (for spans beyond a small, grammar-dependent size), but that the saturation values are extremely large compared to (see section 4.2). For the NOTRANS-FORM and NOEMPTIES grammars, most categories are reachable from most other categories using rules which can be applied over a single span. Once you get one of these categories over a span, you will get the rest as well. We now formalize this.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Treebank Grammar Structure",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Definition 2 A category W is empty-reachable in a grammar X if W",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Treebank Grammar Structure",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "can be built using only empty terminals.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Treebank Grammar Structure",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "The empty-reachable set for the NOTRANSFORM grammar is shown in figure 5. 8 These 23 categories plus the tag -NONE-create a passive saturation of 24 for zero-spans for NOTRANSFORM (see figure 9) . The same-span-reachability relation induces a graph over the 27 non-terminal categories. The stronglyconnected component (SCC) reduction of that graph is shown in figures 6 and 7. 9 Unsurprisingly, the largest SCC, which contains most \"common\" categories (S, NP, VP, PP, etc.) is slightly larger for the NOTRANS-FORM grammar, since the empty-reachable set is nonempty. However, note that even for NOTRANSFORM, the largest SCC is smaller than the empty-reachable set, since empties provide direct entry into some of the lower SCCs, in particular because of WH-gaps.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 194,
"text": "figure 9)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Treebank Grammar Structure",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Interestingly, this same high-reachability effect occurs even for the NOUNARIES grammars, as shown in the next section.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Treebank Grammar Structure",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "The total growth and saturation of passive edges is relatively easy to describe. Figure 8 shows the total num- 9 Implied arcs have been removed for clarity. The relation is in fact the transitive closure of this graph. Figure 9 : The average passive saturation (number of passive edges) for a span of a given size as processed in practice (left), and as predicted by our models (right).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 112,
"text": "9",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 89,
"text": "Figure 8",
"ref_id": "FIGREF5"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 227,
"text": "Figure 9",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Passive Edges",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "ber of passive edges by sentence length, and figure 9 shows the saturation as a function of span size. 10 The grammar representation does not affect which passive edges will occur for a given span.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 105,
"text": "10",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Passive Edges",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "The large SCCs cause the relative independence of passive saturation from span size for the NOTRANS-FORM and NOEMPTIES settings. Once any category in the SCC is found, all will be found, as well as all categories reachable from that SCC. For these settings, the passive saturation can be summarized by three saturation numbers: zero-spans (empties)ba",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Passive Edges",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": ", one-spans (words)ba",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "# c 6 d f e",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ", and all larger spans (categories)ba",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "# c 6 d V g",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ". Taking averages directly from the data, we have our first model, shown on the right in figure 9.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "# c 6 d '",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "For the NOUNARIES settings, there will be no same-span reachability and hence no SCCs. To reach a new category always requires the use of at least one overt word. However, for spans of size 6 or so, enough words exist that the same high saturation effect will still be observed. This can be modeled quite simply by assuming each terminal unlocks a fixed fraction of the nonterminals, as seen in the right graph of figure 9, but we omit the details here.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "# c 6 d '",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Using these passive saturation models, we can directly estimate the total passive edge counts by summation:`h",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "# c 6 d '",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "d p i d P \u00a3 % \u00a5 q \u00a9 ) S r 1 s t v u e \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 w G x ! y p \u00a9 b a # c 6 d t 10",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "# c 6 d '",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The maximum possible passive saturation for any span greater than one is equal to the number of phrasal categories in the treebank grammar: 27. However, empty and size-one spans can additionally be covered by POS tag edges.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "# c 6 d '",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The predictions are shown in figure 8. For the NO-TRANSFORM or NOEMPTIES settings, this reduces to:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "# c 6 d '",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "d p i d P \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 q \u00a9 ) s g \" s ' b a c 8 d ' G x \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 q \u00a9 \u00a6 a # c 8 d V g G 1 \u00a3 % \u00a5 G ! \u00a9 a # c 8 d f e",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "# c 6 d '",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We correctly predict that the passive edge total exponents will be slightly less than 2.0 when unaries are present, and greater than 2.0 when they are not. With unaries, the linear terms in the reduced equation are significant over these sentence lengths and drag down the exponent. The linear terms are larger for NO-TRANSFORM and therefore drag the exponent down more. 11 Without unaries, the more gradual saturation growth increases the total exponent, more so for NOUNARIESLOW than NOUNARIESHIGH. However, note that for spans around 8 and onward, the saturation curves are essentially constant for all settings.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "# c 6 d '",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Active edges are the vast majority of edges and essentially determine (non-transient) memory requirements. While passive counts depend only on the grammar transform, active counts depend primarily on the encoding for general magnitude but also on the transform for the details (and exponent effects). Figure 10 shows the total active edges by sentence size for three settings chosen to illustrate the main effects. Total active growth is sub-quadratic for LIST, but has an exponent of up to about 2.4 for the TRIE settings. h i jk l for the same reason. Moreover, note that m e f # g has a higher best-fit exponent, yet will never actually outgrow it. To model the active totals, we again begin by modeling the active saturation curves, shown in figure 11. The active saturation for any span is bounded above by , the number of active grammar states (states in the grammar FSAs which correspond to active edges). For list grammars, this number is the sum of the lengths of all rules in the grammar. For trie grammars, it is the number of unique rule prefixes (including the LHS) in the grammar. For minimized grammars, it is the number of states with outgoing transitions (non-black states in figure 2). The value of is shown for each setting in figure 12. Note that the maximum number of active states is dramatically larger for lists since common rule prefixes are duplicated many times. For minimized FSAs, the state reduction is even greater. Since states which are earlier in a rule are much more likely to match a span, the fact that tries (and min FSAs) compress early states is particularly advantageous.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 301,
"end": 310,
"text": "Figure 10",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Unlike passive saturation, which was relatively close to its bound , active saturation is much farther below . Furthermore, while passive saturation was relatively constant in span size, at least after a point, active saturation quite clearly grows with span size, even for spans well beyond those shown in figure 11. We now model these active saturation curves.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "What does it take for a given active state to match a given span? For TRIE and LIST, an active state cor-responds to a prefix of a rule and is a mix of POS tags and phrasal categories, each of which must be matched, in order, over that span for that state to be reached. Given the large SCCs seen in section 4.1, phrasal categories, to a first approximation, might as well be wildcards, able to match any span, especially if empties are present. However, the tags are, in comparison, very restricted. Tags must actually match a word in the span.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "More precisely, consider an active state c in the grammar and a span a . In the TRIE and LIST encodings, there is some, possibly empty, list n of labels that must be matched over a before an active edge with this state can be constructed over that span. 12 Assume that the phrasal categories in n can match any span (or any non-zero span in NOEMPTIES). 13 Therefore, phrasal categories in n do not constrain whether c can match a . The real issue is whether the tags in n will match words in a . Assume that a random tag matches a random word with a fixed probability`, independently of where the tag is in the rule and where the word is in the sentence. 14 Assume further that, although tags occur more often than categories in rules (63.9% of rule items are tags in the NOTRANSFORM case 15 ), given a fixed number of tags and categories, all permutations are equally likely to appear as rules. 16 Under these assumptions, the probability that an active state c is in the treebank grammar will depend only on the number We then have an expression for the chance of matching a specific alignment of an active state to a specific span. Clearly, there can be many alignments which differ only in the spans of the categories, but line up the same tags with the same words. However, there will be a certain number of unique ways in which the words and tags can be lined up between c and a . If we know this number, we can calculate the total probability that there is some alignment which matches. For example, consider the state NP NP CC NP . PP (which has signature (1,2) -the PP has no effect) over a span of length \u00a5 , with empties available. The NPs can match any span, so there are \u00a5 alignments which are distinct from the standpoint of the CC tag -it can be in any position. The chance that some alignment will match is therefore",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 896,
"end": 898,
"text": "16",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "p \u00a3 % c q \u00a9 r ) s \u00a3 \u00a6 d e t V",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "! \u00ff d \u00a3 p ! y z \u00a9s",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": ", which, for small`is roughly linear in \u00a5 . It should be clear that for an active state like this, the longer the span, the more likely it is that this state will be found over that span.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "It is unfortunately not the case that all states with the same signature will match a span length with the same probability. For example, the state NP NP NP CC . NP has the same signature, but must align the CC with the final element of the span. A state like this will not become more likely (in our model) as span size increases. However, with some straightforward but space-consuming recurrences, we can calculate the expected chance that a random rule of a given signature will match a given span length. Since we know how many states have a given signature, we can calculate the total active saturation c q a",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "c 8 d P \u00a3 % \u00a5 q \u00a9 as c q a # c 6 d P \u00a3 % \u00a5 q \u00a9 { ) x r x | } o P i u \u00a5 v d P \u00a3 9 p \u00a9 p ( F | \u00a3 % z c 8 d p o x \u00a3 % c t V \u00a5 q \u00a9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "more efficient than NOUNARIESHIGH despite having more active states, largely because using the bottoms of chains increases the frequency of tags relative to categories. 16 This is also false; tags occur slightly more often at the beginnings of rules and less often at the ends. This model has two parameters. First, there is`which we estimated directly by looking at the expected match between the distribution of tags in rules and the distribution of tags in the Treebank text (which is around 1/17.7). No factor for POS tag ambiguity was used, another simplification. 17 Second, there is the map",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 169,
"end": 171,
"text": "16",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "o P i u \u00a5 v d",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "from signatures to a number of active states, which was read directly from the compiled grammars.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "This model predicts the active saturation curves shown to the right in figure 11 . Note that the model, though not perfect, exhibits the qualitative differences between the settings, both in magnitudes and exponents. 18 In particular:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 219,
"text": "18",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 80,
"text": "figure 11",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "The transform primarily changes the saturation over short spans, while the encoding determines the overall magnitudes. For example, in TRIE-NOEMPTIES the low-span saturation is lower than in TRIE-NOTRANSFORM since short spans in the former case can match only signatures which have both d and o small, while in the latter only d needs to be small. Therefore, the several hundred states which are reachable only via categories all match every span starting from size 0 for NOTRANSFORM, but are accessed only gradually for NOEMPTIES. However, for larger spans, the behavior converges to counts characteristic for TRIE encodings.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "For LIST encodings, the early saturations are huge, due to the fact that most of the states which are available early for trie grammars are precisely the ones duplicated up to thousands of times in the list grammars. However, the additive gain over the initial states is roughly the same for both, as after a few items are specified, the tries become sparse.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "The actual magnitudes and exponents 19 of the saturations are surprisingly well predicted, suggesting that this model captures the essential behavior.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "These active saturation curves produce the active total curves in figure 10, which are also qualitatively correct in both magnitudes and exponents.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Active Edges",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Now that we have models for active and passive edges, we can combine them to model traversal counts as well. We assume that the chance for a passive edge and an active edge to combine into a traversal is a single probability representing how likely an arbitrary active state is to have a continuation with a label matching an arbitrary passive state. List rule states have only one continuation, while trie rule states in the branch- Figure 13 : The average number of traversals for sentences of a given length as observed in practice (left), and as predicted by the models presented in the latter part of the paper (right).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 434,
"end": 443,
"text": "Figure 13",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Traversals",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "ing portion of the trie average about 3.7 (min FSAs 4.2). 20 Making another uniformity assumption, we assume that this combination probability is the continuation degree divided by the total number of passive labels, categorical or tag (73).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Traversals",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "In figure 13 , we give graphs and exponents of the traversal counts, both observed and predicted, for various settings. Our model correctly predicts the approximate values and qualitative facts, including:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"text": "figure 13",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Traversals",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "For LIST, the observed exponent is lower than for TRIEs, though the total number of traversals is dramatically higher. This is because the active saturation is growing much faster for TRIEs; note that in cases like this the lower-exponent curve will never actually outgrow the higher-exponent curve.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Traversals",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "Of the settings shown, only TRIE-NOEMPTIES exhibits super-cubic traversal totals.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Traversals",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "Despite their similar active and passive exponents, TRIE-NOEMPTIES and TRIE-NOTRANSFORM vary in traversal growth due to the \"early burst\" of active edges which gives TRIE-NOTRANSFORM significantly more edges over short spans than its power law would predict. This excess leads to a sizeable quadratic addend in the number of transitions, causing the average best-fit exponent to drop without greatly affecting the overall magnitudes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Traversals",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "Overall, growth of saturation values in span size increases best-fit traversal exponents, while early spikes in saturation reduce them. The traversal exponents therefore range from LIST-NOTRANSFORM at 2.6 to TRIE-NOUNARIESLOW at over 3.8. However, the final performance is more dependent on the magnitudes, which range from LIST-NOTRANSFORM as the worst, despite its exponent, to MIN-NOUNARIESHIGH as the best. The single biggest factor in the time and traversal performance turned out to be the encoding, which is fortunate because the choice of grammar transform will depend greatly on the application. 20 This is a simplification as well, since the shorter prefixes that tend to have higher continuation degrees are on average also a larger fraction of the active edges.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 605,
"end": 607,
"text": "20",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Traversals",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "We built simple but accurate models on the basis of two observations. First, passive saturation is relatively constant in span size, but large due to high reachability among phrasal categories in the grammar. Second, active saturation grows with span size because, as spans increase, the tags in a given active edge are more likely to find a matching arrangement over a span. Combining these models, we demonstrated that a wide range of empirical qualitative and quantitative behaviors of an exhaustive parser could be derived, including the potential super-cubic traversal growth over sentence lengths of interest.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Effectively \"testing on the training set\" would be invalid if we wished to present performance results such as precision and recall, but it is not a problem for the present experiments, which focus solely on the parser load and grammar structure.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Note that the number of words (or size) of a span is equal to the difference between the endpoints.5 The hardware was a 700 MHz Intel Pentium III, and we used up to 2GB of RAM for very long sentences or very poor parameters. With good parameter settings, the system can parse 100+ word treebank sentences.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Note that, over these values of , even a basic quadratic function like the simple sum r \u00a4 B d e E f g has a bestfit simple power curve exponent of only",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The essence of the MIN model, which is omitted here, is that states are represented by the \"easiest\" label sequence which leads to that state.13 The model for the NOUNARIES cases is slightly more complex, but similar.14 This is of course false; in particular, tags at the end of rules disproportionately tend to be punctuation tags.15 Although the present model does not directly apply to the NOUNARIES cases, NOUNARIESLOW is significantly",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In general, the we used was lower for not having modeled tagging ambiguity, but higher for not having modeled the fact that the SCCs are not of size 27.18 And does so without any \"tweakable\" parameters.19 Note that the list curves do not compellingly suggest a power law model.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Natural Language Understanding",
"authors": [
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [],
"last": "Allen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "James Allen. 1995. Natural Language Understand- ing. Benjamin Cummings, Redwood City, CA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Tree-bank grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Eugene",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charniak",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1031--1036",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eugene Charniak. 1996. Tree-bank grammars. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1031-1036.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael John",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Collins",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "ACL 35/EACL 8",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "16--23",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Michael John Collins. 1997. Three generative, lex- icalised models for statistical parsing. In ACL 35/EACL 8, pages 16-23.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "An efficient context-free parsing algorithm",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jay",
"middle": [],
"last": "Earley",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1970,
"venue": "Communications of the ACM",
"volume": "6",
"issue": "",
"pages": "451--455",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jay Earley. 1970. An efficient context-free parsing al- gorithm. Communications of the ACM, 6:451-455.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "An \u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 \u00a7\u00a9 agenda-based chart parser for arbitrary probabilistic context-free grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Christopher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dan Klein and Christopher D. Manning. 2001. An \u00a2 \u00a4 \u00a3 \u00a6 \u00a5 \u00a7\u00a9 agenda-based chart parser for arbitrary prob- abilistic context-free grammars. Technical Report dbpubs/2001-16, Stanford University.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "A recursive ascent Earley parser",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Leermakers",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Information Processing Letters",
"volume": "41",
"issue": "",
"pages": "87--91",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Leermakers. 1992. A recursive ascent Earley parser. Information Processing Letters, 41:87-91.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Christopher",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hinrich",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sch\u00fctze",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Christopher D. Manning and Hinrich Sch\u00fctze. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Pro- cessing. MIT Press, Boston, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn treebank",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mitchell",
"middle": [
"P"
],
"last": "Marcus",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Beatrice",
"middle": [],
"last": "Santorini",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mary",
"middle": [
"Ann"
],
"last": "Marcinkiewicz",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1993,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "19",
"issue": "",
"pages": "313--330",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini, and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn treebank. Computa- tional Linguistics, 19:313-330.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Improved left-corner chart parsing for large context-free grammars",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Robert",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moore",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Parsing Technologies",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Robert C. Moore. 2000. Improved left-corner chart parsing for large context-free grammars. In Pro- ceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Parsing Technologies.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"uris": null,
"text": "Grammar Encodings: FSAs for a subset of the rules for the category NP. Non-black states are active, non-white states are accepting, and bold transitions are phrasal.",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"uris": null,
"text": "The average time to parse sentences using various parameters.",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF3": {
"uris": null,
"text": "(a) The number of traversals for different grammar transforms. (b) The number of traversals for different grammar encodings. (c)",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF4": {
"uris": null,
"text": "The empty-reachable set for the NOTRANS-The same-span-reachability graph for the NOEMPTIES grammar.one instance of W , every node not dominating that instance is an instance of an empty-reachable category.",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF5": {
"uris": null,
"text": "The average number of passive edges processed in practice (left), and predicted by our models (right).",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF6": {
"uris": null,
"text": "The average active saturation (number of active edges) for a span of a given size as processed in practice (left), and as predicted by our models (right). Grammar sizes: active state counts.",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF8": {
"uris": null,
"text": "align with a non-empty span (for NOEMPTIES) or any span at all (for NOTRANSFORM), then the question of whether this alignment of c with a matches is determined entirely by the d tags. However, with our assumptions, the probability that a randomly chosen set of d tags matches a randomly chosen set of d words is simplyhy .",
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"TABREF3": {
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>2.0M</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>2.0M</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>Avg. Active Totals</td><td>0.5M 1.0M 1.5M</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>List-NoTransform exp 1.88 r 0.999 Trie-NoTransform exp 2.18 r 0.999 Trie-NoEmpties exp 2.43 r 0.999</td><td>Avg. Active Totals</td><td>0.5M 1.0M 1.5M</td><td/><td/><td/><td>List-NoTransform exp 1.81 r 0.999 Trie-NoTransform exp 2.10 r 1.000 Trie-NoEmpties exp 2.36 r 1.000</td></tr><tr><td/><td>0.0M</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>0.0M</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>20</td><td>30</td><td>40</td><td>50</td><td/><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>20</td><td>30</td><td>40</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Sentence Length</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Sentence Length</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">2.0K 12.0K 14.0K Figure 10: 0.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K Avg. Active Saturation</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>List-NoTransform exp 0.092 r 0.957 Trie-NoTransform exp 0.323 r 0.999 Trie-NoEmpties exp 0.389 r 0.997</td><td>Avg. Active Saturation</td><td>0.0K 2.0K 12.0K 14.0K 4.0K 6.0K 8.0K 10.0K</td><td/><td/><td/><td>List-NoTransform exp 0.111 r 0.999 Trie-NoTransform exp 0.297 r 0.998 Trie-NoEmpties exp 0.298 r 0.991</td></tr><tr><td/><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>10</td><td/><td>15</td><td>20</td><td/><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>10</td><td/><td>15</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Span Length</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Span Length</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "The average number of active edges for sentences of a given length as observed in practice (left), and as predicted by our models (right).",
"num": null,
"html": null
}
}
}
} |