File size: 76,117 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 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 | {
"paper_id": "P03-1014",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:14:48.047098Z"
},
"title": "Integrated Shallow and Deep Parsing: TopP meets HPSG",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Anette",
"middle": [],
"last": "Frank",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Edinburgh",
"location": {
"postCode": "66123",
"settlement": "Saarbr\u00fccken",
"country": "Germany, UK"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Markus",
"middle": [],
"last": "Becker",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Edinburgh",
"location": {
"postCode": "66123",
"settlement": "Saarbr\u00fccken",
"country": "Germany, UK"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Berthold",
"middle": [],
"last": "Crysmann",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Edinburgh",
"location": {
"postCode": "66123",
"settlement": "Saarbr\u00fccken",
"country": "Germany, UK"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Bernd",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kiefer",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Edinburgh",
"location": {
"postCode": "66123",
"settlement": "Saarbr\u00fccken",
"country": "Germany, UK"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Ulrich",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sch\u00e4fer",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Edinburgh",
"location": {
"postCode": "66123",
"settlement": "Saarbr\u00fccken",
"country": "Germany, UK"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We present a novel, data-driven method for integrated shallow and deep parsing. Mediated by an XML-based multi-layer annotation architecture, we interleave a robust, but accurate stochastic topological field parser of German with a constraintbased HPSG parser. Our annotation-based method for dovetailing shallow and deep phrasal constraints is highly flexible, allowing targeted and fine-grained guidance of constraint-based parsing. We conduct systematic experiments that demonstrate substantial performance gains. 1",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P03-1014",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We present a novel, data-driven method for integrated shallow and deep parsing. Mediated by an XML-based multi-layer annotation architecture, we interleave a robust, but accurate stochastic topological field parser of German with a constraintbased HPSG parser. Our annotation-based method for dovetailing shallow and deep phrasal constraints is highly flexible, allowing targeted and fine-grained guidance of constraint-based parsing. We conduct systematic experiments that demonstrate substantial performance gains. 1",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "One of the strong points of deep processing (DNLP) technology such as HPSG or LFG parsers certainly lies with the high degree of precision as well as detailed linguistic analysis these systems are able to deliver. Although considerable progress has been made in the area of processing speed, DNLP systems still cannot rival shallow and medium depth technologies in terms of throughput and robustness. As a net effect, the impact of deep parsing technology on application-oriented NLP is still fairly limited.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "With the advent of XML-based hybrid shallowdeep architectures as presented in (Grover and Lascarides, 2001; Crysmann et al., 2002; Uszkoreit, 2002) it has become possible to integrate the added value of deep processing with the performance and robustness of shallow processing. So far, integration has largely focused on the lexical level, to improve upon the most urgent needs in increasing the robustness and coverage of deep parsing systems, namely lexical coverage. While integration in (Grover and Lascarides, 2001) was still restricted to morphological and PoS information, (Crysmann et al., 2002) extended shallow-deep integration at the lexical level to lexico-semantic information, and named entity expressions, including multiword expressions. (Crysmann et al., 2002) assume a vertical, 'pipeline' scenario where shallow NLP tools provide XML annotations that are used by the DNLP system as a preprocessing and lexical interface. The perspective opened up by a multi-layered, data-centric architecture is, however, much broader, in that it encourages horizontal cross-fertilisation effects among complementary and/or competing components.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 107,
"text": "(Grover and Lascarides, 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 130,
"text": "Crysmann et al., 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 147,
"text": "Uszkoreit, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 491,
"end": 520,
"text": "(Grover and Lascarides, 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 580,
"end": 603,
"text": "(Crysmann et al., 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 754,
"end": 777,
"text": "(Crysmann et al., 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "One of the culprits for the relative inefficiency of DNLP parsers is the high degree of ambiguity found in large-scale grammars, which can often only be resolved within a larger syntactic domain. Within a hybrid shallow-deep platform one can take advantage of partial knowledge provided by shallow parsers to pre-structure the search space of the deep parser. In this paper, we will thus complement the efforts made on the lexical side by integration at the phrasal level. We will show that this may lead to considerable performance increase for the DNLP component. More specifically, we combine a probabilistic topological field parser for German with the HPSG parser of (Callmeier, 2000) . The HPSG grammar used is the one originally developed by (M\u00fcller and Kasper, 2000) , with significant performance enhancements by B. Crysmann.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 672,
"end": 689,
"text": "(Callmeier, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 749,
"end": 774,
"text": "(M\u00fcller and Kasper, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In Section 2 we discuss the mapping problem involved with syntactic integration of shallow and deep analyses and motivate our choice to combine the HPSG system with a topological parser. Section 3 outlines our basic approach towards syntactic shallow-deep integration. Section 4 introduces various confidence measures, to be used for fine-tuning of phrasal integration. Sections 5 and 6 report on experiments and results of integrated shallow-deep parsing, measuring the effect of various integration parameters on performance gains for the DNLP component. Section 7 concludes and discusses possible extensions, to address robustness issues.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The prime motivation for integrated shallow-deep processing is to combine the robustness and efficiency of shallow processing with the accuracy and fine-grainedness of deep processing. Shallow analyses could be used to pre-structure the search space of a deep parser, enhancing its efficiency. Even if deep analysis fails, shallow analysis could act as a guide to select partial analyses from the deep parser's chart -enhancing the robustness of deep analysis, and the informativeness of the combined system.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Integrated Shallow and Deep Processing",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we concentrate on the usage of shallow information to increase the efficiency, and potentially the quality, of HPSG parsing. In particular, we want to use analyses delivered by an efficient shallow parser to pre-structure the search space of HPSG parsing, thereby enhancing its efficiency, and guiding deep parsing towards a best-first analysis suggested by shallow analysis constraints.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Integrated Shallow and Deep Processing",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The search space of an HPSG chart parser can be effectively constrained by external knowledge sources if these deliver compatible partial subtrees, which would then only need to be checked for compatibility with constituents derived in deep parsing. Raw constituent span information can be used to guide the parsing process by penalizing constituents which are incompatible with the precomputed 'shape'. Additional information about proposed constituents, such as categorial or featural constraints, provide further criteria for prioritising compatible, and penalising incompatible constituents in the deep parser's chart.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Integrated Shallow and Deep Processing",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "An obvious challenge for our approach is thus to identify suitable shallow knowledge sources that can deliver compatible constraints for HPSG parsing.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Integrated Shallow and Deep Processing",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "However, chunks delivered by state-of-the-art shallow parsers are not isomorphic to deep syntactic analyses that explicitly encode phrasal embedding structures. As a consequence, the boundaries of deep grammar constituents in (1.a) cannot be predetermined on the basis of a shallow chunk analysis (1.b). Moreover, the prevailing greedy bottom-up processing strategies applied in chunk parsing do not take into account the macro-structure of sentences. They are thus easily trapped in cases such as (2).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Shallow-Deep Mapping Problem",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "( 1) (2) Fred eats [ AE\u00c8 pizza and Mary] drinks wine.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Shallow-Deep Mapping Problem",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "In sum, state-of-the-art chunk parsing does neither provide sufficient detail, nor the required accuracy to act as a 'guide' for deep syntactic analysis.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Shallow-Deep Mapping Problem",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Recently, there is revived interest in shallow analyses that determine the clausal macro-structure of sentences. The topological field model of (German) syntax (H\u00f6hle, 1983) divides basic clauses into distinct fields -pre-, middle-, and post-fields -delimited by verbal or sentential markers, which constitute the left/right sentence brackets. This model of clause structure is underspecified, or partial as to non-sentential constituent structure, but provides a theory-neutral model of sentence macro-structure.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 173,
"text": "(H\u00f6hle, 1983)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Stochastic Topological Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Due to its linguistic underpinning, the topological field model provides a pre-partitioning of complex sentences that is (i) highly compatible with deep syntactic analysis, and thus (ii) maximally effective to increase parsing efficiency if interleaved with deep syntactic analysis; (iii) partiality regarding the constituency of non-sentential material ensures robustness, coverage, and processing efficiency. explored a corpusbased stochastic approach to topological field parsing, by training a non-lexicalised PCFG on a topological corpus derived from the NEGRA treebank of German. Measured on the basis of hand-corrected PoS-tagged input as provided by the NEGRA treebank, the parser achieves 100% coverage for length 40 (99.8% for all). Labelled precision and recall are around 93%. Perfect match (full tree identity) is about 80% (cf. Table 1, disamb +).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Stochastic Topological Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, the topological parser was provided a tagger front-end for free text processing, using the TnT tagger (Brants, 2000) . The grammar was ported to the efficient LoPar parser of (Schmid, 2000) . Tagging inaccuracies lead to a drop of 5.1/4.7 percent- CL-V2 VF-TOPIC LK-VFIN MF RK-VPART NF ART NN VAFIN ART ADJA NN VAPP CL-SUBCL Der,1 Zehnkampf,2 h\u00e4tte,3 eine,4 andere,5 Dimension,6 gehabt,7 , The decathlon would have a other dimension had LK-COMPL MF RK-VFIN KOUS PPER PROAV VAPP VAFIN wenn,9 er,10 dabei,11 gewesen,12 w\u00e4re,13 . if he there been had . TOPO2HPSG type=\"root\" id=\"5608\" MAP CONSTR id=\"T1\" constr=\"v2 cp\" conf \u00d2\u00d8 =\"0.87\" left=\"W1\" right=\"W13\"/ MAP CONSTR id=\"T2\" constr=\"v2 vf\" conf \u00d2\u00d8 =\"0.87\" left=\"W1\" right=\"W2\"/ MAP CONSTR id=\"T3\" constr=\"vfronted vfin+rk\" conf \u00d2\u00d8 =\"0.87\" left=\"W3\" right=\"W3\"/ MAP CONSTR id=\"T6\" constr=\"vfronted rk-complex\" conf \u00d2\u00d8 =\"0.87\" left=\"W7\" right=\"W7\"/ MAP CONSTR id=\"T4\" constr=\"vfronted vfin+vp+rk\" conf \u00d2\u00d8 =\"0.87\" left=\"W3\" right=\"W13\"/ MAP CONSTR id=\"T5\" constr=\"vfronted vp+rk\" conf \u00d2\u00d8 =\"0.87\" left=\"W4\" right=\"W13\"/ MAP CONSTR id=\"T10\" constr=\"extrapos rk+nf\" conf \u00d2\u00d8 =\"0.87\" left=\"W7\" right=\"W13\"/ MAP CONSTR id=\"T7\" constr=\"vl cpfin compl\" conf \u00d2\u00d8 =\"0.87\" left=\"W9\" right=\"W13\"/ MAP CONSTR id=\"T8\" constr=\"vl compl vp\" conf \u00d2\u00d8 =\"0.87\" left=\"W10\" right=\"W13\"/ MAP CONSTR id=\"T9\" constr=\"vl rk fin+complex+finlast\" conf \u00d2\u00d8 =\"0.87\" left=\"W12\" right=\"W13\"/ /TOPO2HPSG Figure 1 : Topological tree w/param. cat., TOPO2HPSG map-constraints, tree skeleton of HPSG analysis dis-cove-perfect LP LR 0CB 2CB amb rage match in % in % in % in % + 100.0 80.4 93.4 92.9 92.1 98.9 99.8 72.1 88.3 88.2 87.8 97.9 As seen in Figure 1 , the topological trees abstract away from non-sentential constituency -phrasal fields MF (middle-field) and VF (pre-field) directly expand to PoS tags. By contrast, they perfectly render the clausal skeleton and embedding structure of complex sentences. In addition, parameterised category labels encode larger syntactic contexts, or 'constructions', such as clause type (CL-V2, -SUBCL, -REL), or inflectional patterns of verbal clusters (RK-VFIN,-VPART). These properties, along with their high accuracy rate, make them perfect candidates for tight integration with deep syntactic analysis.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 131,
"text": "(Brants, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 204,
"text": "(Schmid, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 263,
"end": 529,
"text": "CL-V2 VF-TOPIC LK-VFIN MF RK-VPART NF ART NN VAFIN ART ADJA NN VAPP CL-SUBCL Der,1 Zehnkampf,2 h\u00e4tte,3 eine,4 andere,5 Dimension,6 gehabt,7 , The decathlon would have a other dimension had LK-COMPL MF RK-VFIN KOUS PPER PROAV VAPP VAFIN wenn,9",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 1454,
"end": 1462,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1695,
"end": 1703,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Stochastic Topological Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Der D Zehnkampf N' NP-NOM-SG haette V eine D andere AP-ATT Dimension N' N' NP-ACC-SG gehabt V EPS wenn C er NP-NOM-SG dabei PP gewesen V waere V-LE V V S CP-MOD EPS EPS EPS/NP-NOM-SG S/NP-NOM-SG S",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Stochastic Topological Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Moreover, due to the combination of scrambling and discontinuous verb clusters in German syntax, a deep parser is confronted with a high degree of local ambiguity that can only be resolved at the clausal level. Highly lexicalised frameworks such as HPSG, however, do not lend themselves naturally to a topdown parsing strategy. Using topological analyses to guide the HPSG will thus provide external top-down information for bottom-up parsing.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Stochastic Topological Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Our work aims at integration of topological and HPSG parsing in a data-centric architecture, where each component acts independently 2 -in contrast to the combination of different syntactic formalisms within a unified parsing process. 3 Data-based integration not only favours modularity, but facilitates flexible and targeted dovetailing of structures.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "TopP meets HPSG",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "While structurally similar, topological trees are not fully isomorphic to HPSG structures. In Figure 1 , e.g., the span from the verb 'h\u00e4tte' to the end of the sentence forms a constituent in the HPSG analysis, while in the topological tree the same span is dominated by a sequence of categories: LK, MF, RK, NF.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 102,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Mapping Topological to HPSG Structures",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Yet, due to its linguistic underpinning, the topological tree can be used to systematically predict key constituents in the corresponding 'target' HPSG analysis. We know, for example, that the span from the fronted verb (LK-VFIN) till the end of its clause CL-V2 corresponds to an HPSG phrase. Also, the first position that follows this verb, here the leftmost daughter of MF, demarcates the left edge of the traditional VP. Spans of the vorfeld VF and clause categories CL exactly match HPSG constituents. Category CL-V2 tells us that we need to reckon with a fronted verb in position of its LK daughter, here 3, while in CL-SUBCL we expect a complementiser in the position of LK, and a finite verb within the right verbal complex RK, which spans positions 12 to 13.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Mapping Topological to HPSG Structures",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "In order to communicate such structural constraints to the deep parser, we scan the topological tree for relevant configurations, and extract the span information for the target HPSG constituents. The resulting 'map constraints' (Fig. 1 ) encode a bracket type name 4 that identifies the target constituent and its left and right boundary, i.e. the concrete span in the sentence under consideration. The span is encoded by the word position index in the input, which is identical for the two parsing processes. 5 In addition to pure constituency constraints, a skilled grammar writer will be able to associate specific HPSG grammar constraints -positive or negative -with these bracket types. These additional constraints will be globally defined, to permit finegrained guidance of the parsing process. This and further information (cf. Section 4) is communicated to the deep parser by way of an XML interface.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 511,
"end": 512,
"text": "5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 229,
"end": 236,
"text": "(Fig. 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Mapping Topological to HPSG Structures",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "In the annotation-based architecture of (Crysmann et al., 2002) , XML-encoded analysis results of all components are stored in a multi-layer XML chart. The architecture employed in this paper improves on (Crysmann et al., 2002) by providing a central Whiteboard Annotation Transformer (WHAT) that supports flexible and powerful access to and transformation of XML annotation based on standard XSLT engines 6 (see (Sch\u00e4fer, 2003) for more details on WHAT). Shallow-deep integration is thus fully annotation driven. Complex XSLT transformations are applied to the various analyses, in order to extract or combine independent knowledge sources, including XPath access to information stored in shallow annotation, complex XSLT transformations to the output of the topological parser, and extraction of bracket constraints.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 63,
"text": "(Crysmann et al., 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 227,
"text": "(Crysmann et al., 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 428,
"text": "(Sch\u00e4fer, 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation-based Integration",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "The HPSG parser is an active bidirectional chart parser which allows flexible parsing strategies by using an agenda for the parsing tasks. 7 To compute priorities for the tasks, several information sources can be consulted, e.g. the estimated quality of the participating edges or external resources like PoS tagger results. Object-oriented implementation of the priority computation facilitates exchange and, moreover, combination of different ranking strategies. Extending our current regime that uses PoS tagging for prioritisation, 8 we are now utilising phrasal constraints (brackets) from topological analysis to enhance the hand-crafted parsing heuristic employed so far.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 140,
"text": "7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Shaping the Deep Parser's Search Space",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "Conditions for changing default priorities Every bracket pair \u00d6 \u00dc computed from the topological analysis comes with a bracket type \u00dc that defines its behaviour in the priority computation. Each bracket type can be associated with a set of positive and negative constraints that state a set of permissible or forbidden rules and/or feature structure configurations for the HPSG analysis.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Shaping the Deep Parser's Search Space",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "The bracket types fall into three main categories: left-, right-, and fully matching brackets. A rightmatching bracket may affect the priority of tasks whose resulting edge will end at the right bracket of a pair, like, for example, a task that would combine edges C and F or C and D in Fig. 2 . Left-matching brackets work analogously. For fully matching brackets, only tasks that produce an edge that matches the span of the bracket pair can be affected, like, e.g., a task that combines edges B and C in Fig. 2 . If, in addition, specified rule as well as feature structure constraints hold, the task is rewarded if they are positive constraints, and penalised if they are negative ones. All tasks that produce crossing edges, i.e. where one endpoint lies strictly inside the bracket pair and the other lies strictly outside, are penalised, e.g., a task that combines edges A and B.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 287,
"end": 293,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 513,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Shaping the Deep Parser's Search Space",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "This behaviour can be implemented efficiently when we assume that the computation of a task pri- ority takes into account the priorities of the tasks it builds upon. This guarantees that the effect of changing one task in the parsing process will propagate to all depending tasks without having to check the bracket conditions repeatedly. For each task, it is sufficient to examine the startand endpoints of the building edges to determine if its priority is affected by some bracket. Only four cases can occur:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Shaping the Deep Parser's Search Space",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "1. The new edge spans a pair of brackets: a match 2. The new edge starts or ends at one of the brackets, but does not match: left or right hit 3. One bracket of a pair is at the joint of the building edges and a start-or endpoint lies strictly inside the brackets: a crossing (edges A and B in Fig. 2 ) 4. No bracket at the endpoints of both edges: use the default priority For left-/right-matching brackets, a match behaves exactly like the corresponding left or right hit.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 294,
"end": 300,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Shaping the Deep Parser's Search Space",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "If the priority of a task is changed, the change is computed relative to the default priority. We use two alternative confidence values, and a hand-coded parameter \u00b4\u00dc\u00b5, to adjust the impact on the default priority heuristics. conf \u00d2\u00d8 (br \u00dc ) specifies the confidence for a concrete bracket pair \u00d6 \u00dc of type \u00dc in a given sentence, based on the tree entropy of the topological parse. conf \u00d4\u00d6 specifies a measure of 'expected accuracy' for each bracket type. Sec. 4 will introduce these measures.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Computing the new priority",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The priority \u00d4\u00b4\u00d8\u00b5 of a task \u00d8 involving a bracket \u00d6 \u00dc is computed from the default priority \u00d4\u00b4\u00d8\u00b5 by:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Computing the new priority",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "\u00d4\u00b4\u00d8\u00b5 \u00d4\u00b4\u00d8\u00b5 \u00a3\u00b4\u00bd\u00a6 \u00d3\u00d2 \u00d2\u00d8\u00b4 \u00d6 \u00dc \u00b5 \u00a3 \u00d3\u00d2 \u00d4\u00d6\u00b4\u00dc \u00b5 \u00a3\u00b4\u00dc\u00b5\u00b5",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Computing the new priority",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This way of calculating priorities allows flexible parameterisation for the integration of bracket constraints. While the topological parser's accuracy is high, we need to reckon with (partially) wrong analyses that could counter the expected performance gains. An important factor is therefore the confidence we can have, for any new sentence, into the best parse delivered by the topological parser: If confidence is high, we want it to be fully considered for prioritisation -if it is low, we want to lower its impact, or completely ignore the proposed brackets.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confidence Measures",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We will experiment with two alternative confidence measures: (i) expected accuracy of particular bracket types extracted from the best parse delivered, and (ii) tree entropy based on the probability distribution encountered in a topological parse, as a measure of the overall accuracy of the best parse proposed -and thus the extracted brackets. 9",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confidence Measures",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "To determine a measure of 'expected accuracy' for the map constraints, we computed precision and recall for the 34 bracket types by comparing the extracted brackets from the suite of best delivered topological parses against the brackets we extracted from the trees in the manually annotated evaluation corpus in . We obtain 88.3% precision, 87.8% recall for brackets extracted from the best topological parse, run with TnT front end. We chose precision of extracted bracket types as a static confidence weight for prioritisation.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conf \u00d4\u00d6 : Accuracy of map-constraints",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Precision figures are distributed as follows: 26.5% of the bracket types have precision 90% (93.1% in avg, 53.5% of bracket mass), 50% have precision 80% (88.9% avg, 77.7% bracket mass). 20.6% have precision 50% (41.26% in avg, 2.7% bracket mass). For experiments using a threshold on conf \u00d4\u00d6 (x) for bracket type \u00dc, we set a threshold value of 0.7, which excludes 32.35% of the lowconfidence bracket types (and 22.1% bracket mass), and includes chunk-based brackets (see Section 5).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conf \u00d4\u00d6 : Accuracy of map-constraints",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "While precision over bracket types is a static measure that is independent from the structural complexity of a particular sentence, tree entropy is defined as the entropy over the probability distribution of the set of parsed trees for a given sentence. It is a useful measure to assess how certain the parser is about the best analysis, e.g. to measure the training utility value of a data point in the context of sample selection (Hwa, 2000) . We thus employ tree entropy as a confidence measure for the quality of the best topological parse, and the extracted bracket constraints.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 432,
"end": 443,
"text": "(Hwa, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conf \u00d2\u00d8 : Entropy of Parse Distribution",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "We carry out an experiment to assess the effect of varying entropy thresholds on precision and recall of topological parsing, in terms of perfect match rate, and show a way to determine an optimal value for . We compute tree entropy over the full probability distribution, and normalise the values to be distributed in a range between 0 and 1. The normalisation factor is empirically determined as the highest entropy over all sentences of the training set. 10",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conf \u00d2\u00d8 : Entropy of Parse Distribution",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "We randomly split the manually corrected evaluation corpus of (for sentence length \u00bc) into a training set of 600 sentences and a test set of 408 sentences. This yields the following values for the training set (test set in brackets): initial perfect match rate is 73.5% (70.0%), LP 88.8% (87.6%), and LR 88.5% (87.8%). 11 Coverage is 99.8% for both. Evaluation measures For the task of identifying the perfect matches from a set of parses we give the following standard definitions: precision is the proportion of selected parses that have a perfect match -thus being the perfect match rate, and recall is the proportion of perfect matches that the system selected. Coverage is usually defined as the proportion of attempted analyses with at least one parse. We extend this definition to treat successful analyses with a high tree entropy as being out of coverage. Fig. 3 shows the effect of decreasing entropy thresholds on precision, recall and coverage. The unfiltered set of all sentences is found at =1. Lowering in- We determine f-measure as composite measure of precision and recall with equal weighting (\u00ab=0.5).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 865,
"end": 871,
"text": "Fig. 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experimental setup",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We use f-measure as a target function on the training set to determine a plausible . F-measure is maximal at =0.236 with 88.9%, see Figure 4 . Precision and recall are 83.7% and 94.8% resp. while coverage goes down to 83.0%. Applying the same on the test set, we get the following results: 80.5% precision, 93.0% recall. Coverage goes down to 80.6%. LP is 93.3%, LR is 91.2%.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 140,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We distribute the complement of the associated tree entropy of a parse tree \u00d8\u00d6 as a global confidence measure over all brackets \u00d6 extracted from that parse: conf \u00d2\u00d8\u00b4 \u00d6\u00b5 \u00bd ent\u00b4\u00d8\u00d6\u00b5. For the thresholded version of conf \u00d2\u00d8\u00b4 \u00d6\u00b5, we set the threshold to \u00bd \u00bd \u00bc \u00be\u00bf \u00bc",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confidence Measure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": ".",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Confidence Measure",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Experimental Setup In the experiments we use the subset of the NEGRA corpus (5060 sents, 24.57%) that is currently parsed by the HPSG grammar. 12 Average sentence length is 8.94, ignoring punctuation; average lexical ambiguity is 3.05 entries/word. As baseline, we performed a run without topological information, yet including PoS prioritisation from tagging. 13 A series of tests explores the effects of alternative parameter settings. We further test the impact of chunk information. To this end, phrasal fields determined by topological parsing were fed to the chunk parser of (Skut and Brants, 1998) . Extracted NP and PP bracket constraints are defined as left-matching bracket types, to compensate for the non-embedding structure of chunks. Chunk brackets are tested in conjunction with topological brackets, and in isolation, using the labelled precision value of 71.1% in (Skut and Brants, 1998) as a uniform confidence weight. 14 Measures For all runs we measure the absolute time and the number of parsing tasks needed to compute the first reading. The times in the individual runs were normalised according to the number of executed tasks per second. We noticed that the coverage of some integrated runs decreased by up to 1% of the 5060 test items, with a typical loss of around 0.5%. To warrant that we are not just trading coverage for speed, we derived two measures from the primary data: an upper bound, where we associated every unsuccessful parse with the time and number of tasks used when the limit of 70000 passive edges was hit, and a lower bound, where we removed the most expensive parses from each run, until we reached the same coverage. Whereas the upper bound is certainly more realistic in an application context, the lower bound gives us a worst case estimate of expectable speed-up.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 145,
"text": "12",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 581,
"end": 604,
"text": "(Skut and Brants, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 881,
"end": 904,
"text": "(Skut and Brants, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We explored the following range of weighting parameters for prioritisation (see Section 3.3 and Table 2 ). We use two global settings for the heuristic parameter . Setting to \u00bd \u00be without using any confidence measure causes the priority of every affected parsing task to be in-or decreased by half its value.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 103,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Integration Parameters",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Setting to 1 drastically increases the influence of topological information, the priority for rewarded tasks is doubled and set to zero for penalized ones.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Integration Parameters",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The first two runs (rows with P E) ignore both confidence parameters (conf \u00d4\u00d6 \u00d2\u00d8 =1), measuring only the effect of higher or lower influence of topological information. In the remaining six runs, the impact of the confidence measures conf \u00d4\u00d6 \u00d2\u00d8 is tested individually, namely +P E and P +E, by setting the resp. alternative value to 1. For two runs, we set the resp. confidence values that drop below a certain threshold to zero (PT, ET) to exclude un- Table 2 summarises the results. A high impact on bracket constraints (1) results in lower performance gains than using a moderate impact ( \u00bd \u00be ) (rows 2,4,5 vs. 3,8,9) . A possible interpretation is that for high , wrong topological constraints and strong negative priorities can mislead the parser.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 598,
"end": 620,
"text": "(rows 2,4,5 vs. 3,8,9)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 453,
"end": 460,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Integration Parameters",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Use of confidence weights yields the best performance gains (with \u00bd \u00be ), in particular, thresholded precision of bracket types PT, and tree entropy +E, with comparable speed-up of factor 2.2/2.3 and 2.27/2.23 (2.25 if averaged). Thresholded entropy ET yields slightly lower gains. This could be due to a non-optimal threshold, or the fact that -while precision differentiates bracket types in terms of their confidence, such that only a small number of brackets are weakened -tree entropy as a global measure penalizes all brackets for a sentence on an equal basis, neutralizing positive effects which -as seen in +/ P -may still contribute useful information.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion of Results",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Additional use of chunk brackets (row 10) leads to a slight decrease, probably due to lower precision of chunk brackets. Even more, isolated use of chunk information (row 11) does not yield signifi- . Similar results were reported in (Daum et al., 2003) for integration of chunk-and dependency parsing. 15",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 234,
"end": 253,
"text": "(Daum et al., 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion of Results",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "For PT -E \u00bd \u00be , Figure 5 shows substantial performance gains, with some outliers in the range of length 25-36. 962 sentences (length 3, avg. 11.09) took longer parse time as compared to the baseline (with 5% variance margin). For coverage losses, we isolated two factors: while erroneous topological information could lead the parser astray, we also found cases where topological information prevented spurious HPSG parses to surface. This suggests that the integrated system bears the potential of crossvalidation of different components.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 24,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": "FIGREF4"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Discussion of Results",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "We demonstrated that integration of shallow topological and deep HPSG processing results in significant performance gains, of factor 2.25-at a high level of deep parser efficiency. We show that macrostructural constraints derived from topological parsing improve significantly over chunk-based constraints. Fine-grained prioritisation in terms of confidence weights could further improve the results.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Our annotation-based architecture is now easily extended to address robustness issues beyond lexical matters. By extracting spans for clausal fragments from topological parses, in case of deep parsing fail-",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "This work was in part supported by a BMBF grant to the DFKI project WHITEBOARD (FKZ 01 IW 002).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "See Section 6 for comparison to recent work on integrated chunk-based and dependency parsing in(Daum et al., 2003).3 As, for example, in(Duchier and Debusmann, 2001).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We currently extract 34 different bracket types.5 We currently assume identical tokenisation, but could accommodate for distinct tokenisation regimes, using map tables.6 Advantages we see in the XSLT approach are (i) minimised programming effort in the target implementation language for XML access, (ii) reuse of transformation rules in multiple modules, (iii) fast integration of new XML-producing components.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "A parsing task encodes the possible combination of a passive and an active chart edge.8 See e.g.(Prins and van Noord, 2001) for related work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Further measures are conceivable: We could extract brackets from some n-best topological parses, associating them with weights, using methods similar to(Carroll and Briscoe, 2002).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Possibly higher values in the test set will be clipped to 1. 11 Evaluation figures for this experiment are given disregarding parameterisation (and punctuation), corresponding to the first row of figures in table 1.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "This test set is different from the corpus used in Section 4.13 In a comparative run without PoS-priorisation, we established a speed-up factor of 1.13 towards the baseline used in our experiment, with a slight increase in coverage (1%). This compares to a speed-up factor of 2.26 reported in(Daum et al., 2003), by integration of PoS guidance into a dependency parser.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The experiments were run on a 700 MHz Pentium III machine. For all runs, the maximum number of passive edges was set to the comparatively high value of 70000.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "(Daum et al., 2003) report a gain of factor 2.76 relative to a non-PoS-guided baseline, which reduces to factor 1.21 relative to a PoS-prioritised baseline, as in our scenario. ure the chart can be inspected for spanning analyses for sub-sentential fragments. Further, we can simplify the input sentence, by pruning adjunct subclauses, and trigger reparsing on the pruned input.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "A Stochastic Topological Parser of German",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Becker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Frank",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLING 2002",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "71--77",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Becker and A. Frank. 2002. A Stochastic Topological Parser of German. In Proceedings of COLING 2002, pages 71-77, Taipei, Taiwan.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Tnt -A Statistical Part-of-Speech Tagger",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brants",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of Eurospeech",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Brants. 2000. Tnt -A Statistical Part-of-Speech Tag- ger. In Proceedings of Eurospeech, Rhodes, Greece.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "PET -A platform for experimentation with efficient HPSG processing techniques",
"authors": [
{
"first": "U",
"middle": [],
"last": "Callmeier",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Natural Language Engineering",
"volume": "6",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "99--108",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "U. Callmeier. 2000. PET -A platform for experimenta- tion with efficient HPSG processing techniques. Nat- ural Language Engineering, 6 (1):99 -108.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "High precision extraction of grammatical relations",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carroll",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "E",
"middle": [],
"last": "Briscoe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of COL-ING 2002",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "134--140",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Carroll and E. Briscoe. 2002. High precision extrac- tion of grammatical relations. In Proceedings of COL- ING 2002, pages 134-140.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "An Integrated Architecture for Deep and Shallow Processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Crysmann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Frank",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kiefer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "St",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "M\u00fcller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "U",
"middle": [],
"last": "Piskorski",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sch\u00e4fer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Siegel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Uszkoreit",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H.-U",
"middle": [],
"last": "Becker",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Krieger",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL 2002",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B. Crysmann, A. Frank, B. Kiefer, St. M\u00fcller, J. Pisko- rski, U. Sch\u00e4fer, M. Siegel, H. Uszkoreit, F. Xu, M. Becker, and H.-U. Krieger. 2002. An Integrated Architecture for Deep and Shallow Processing. In Proceedings of ACL 2002, Pittsburgh.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Constraint Based Integration of Deep and Shallow Parsing Techniques",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Daum",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "K",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Foth",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Menzel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of EACL 2003",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M. Daum, K.A. Foth, and W. Menzel. 2003. Constraint Based Integration of Deep and Shallow Parsing Tech- niques. In Proceedings of EACL 2003, Budapest.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Topological Dependency Trees: A Constraint-based Account of Linear Precedence",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Duchier",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Debusmann",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Duchier and R. Debusmann. 2001. Topological De- pendency Trees: A Constraint-based Account of Lin- ear Precedence. In Proceedings of ACL 2001.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "XML-based data preparation for robust deep parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grover",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lascarides",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL/EACL",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "252--259",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Grover and A. Lascarides. 2001. XML-based data preparation for robust deep parsing. In Proceedings of ACL/EACL 2001, pages 252-259, Toulouse, France.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Topologische Felder. Unpublished manuscript",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "H\u00f6hle",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. H\u00f6hle. 1983. Topologische Felder. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cologne.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Sample selection for statistical grammar induction",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hwa",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of EMNLP/VLC-2000",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "45--52",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Hwa. 2000. Sample selection for statistical gram- mar induction. In Proceedings of EMNLP/VLC-2000, pages 45-52, Hong Kong.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "HPSG analysis of German",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "M\u00fcller",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kasper",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Verbmobil: Foundations of Speech-to-Speech Translation, Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "238--253",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "S. M\u00fcller and W. Kasper. 2000. HPSG analysis of German. In W. Wahlster, editor, Verbmobil: Founda- tions of Speech-to-Speech Translation, Artificial Intel- ligence, pages 238-253. Springer, Berlin.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Unsupervised postagging improves parsing accuracy and parsing efficiency",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Prins",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "G",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Noord",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of IWPT",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "R. Prins and G. van Noord. 2001. Unsupervised pos- tagging improves parsing accuracy and parsing effi- ciency. In Proceedings of IWPT, Beijing.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "WHAT: An XSLT-based Infrastructure for the Integration of Natural Language Processing Components",
"authors": [
{
"first": "U",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sch\u00e4fer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of the SEALTS Workshop, HLT-NAACL03",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "U. Sch\u00e4fer. 2003. WHAT: An XSLT-based Infrastruc- ture for the Integration of Natural Language Process- ing Components. In Proceedings of the SEALTS Work- shop, HLT-NAACL03, Edmonton, Canada.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "LoPar: Design and Implementation. IMS, Stuttgart. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schmid",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. Schmid, 2000. LoPar: Design and Implementation. IMS, Stuttgart. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, Nr. 149.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Chunk tagger: statistical recognition of noun phrases",
"authors": [
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Skut",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brants",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "ESSLLI-1998 Workshop on Automated Acquisition of Syntax and Parsing",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "W. Skut and T. Brants. 1998. Chunk tagger: statistical recognition of noun phrases. In ESSLLI-1998 Work- shop on Automated Acquisition of Syntax and Parsing.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "New Chances for Deep Linguistic Processing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Uszkoreit",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLING 2002",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "H. Uszkoreit. 2002. New Chances for Deep Linguistic Processing. In Proceedings of COLING 2002, pages xiv-xxvii, Taipei, Taiwan.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "An example chart with a bracket pair of type \u00dc. The dashed edges are active.",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "Effect of different thresholds of normalized entropy on precision, recall, and coverage",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "Maximise f-measure on the training set to determine best entropy threshold creases precision, and decreases recall and coverage.",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "up-b low-b up-b low-b up-b Baseline 524 675 3813 4749 Integration of topological brackets w/ parameters",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF4": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "Performance gain/loss per sentence length cant gains over the baseline (0.89/1.1)",
"num": null
},
"TABREF0": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "a. [ \u00c4 There was [ AE\u00c8 a rumor [ \u00c4 it was going to be bought by [ AE\u00c8 a French company [ \u00c4 that",
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>competes in supercomputers]]]]].</td></tr><tr><td>b. [ \u00c4 There was [ AE\u00c8 a rumor]] [ \u00c4 it was going</td></tr><tr><td>to be bought by [ AE\u00c8 a French company]] [ \u00c4</td></tr><tr><td>that competes in supercomputers].</td></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF1": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "",
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>"
},
"TABREF3": {
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Priority weight parameters and results certain candidate brackets or bracket types. For runs including chunk bracketing constraints, we chose thresholded precision (PT) as confidence weights for topological and/or chunk brackets.",
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>"
}
}
}
} |