File size: 109,715 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 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 | {
"paper_id": "P09-1006",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:52:32.431697Z"
},
"title": "Exploiting Heterogeneous Treebanks for Parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Zheng-Yu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niu",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Oriental Plaza",
"location": {
"postCode": "W2, 100738",
"settlement": "Tower, Beijing",
"country": "China"
}
},
"email": "niuzhengyu@rdc.toshiba.com.cn"
},
{
"first": "Haifeng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Oriental Plaza",
"location": {
"postCode": "W2, 100738",
"settlement": "Tower, Beijing",
"country": "China"
}
},
"email": "wanghaifeng@rdc.toshiba.com.cn"
},
{
"first": "Hua",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wu",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Oriental Plaza",
"location": {
"postCode": "W2, 100738",
"settlement": "Tower, Beijing",
"country": "China"
}
},
"email": "wuhua@rdc.toshiba.com.cn"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We address the issue of using heterogeneous treebanks for parsing by breaking it down into two sub-problems, converting grammar formalisms of the treebanks to the same one, and parsing on these homogeneous treebanks. First we propose to employ an iteratively trained target grammar parser to perform grammar formalism conversion, eliminating predefined heuristic rules as required in previous methods. Then we provide two strategies to refine conversion results, and adopt a corpus weighting technique for parsing on homogeneous treebanks. Results on the Penn Treebank show that our conversion method achieves 42% error reduction over the previous best result. Evaluation on the Penn Chinese Treebank indicates that a converted dependency treebank helps constituency parsing and the use of unlabeled data by self-training further increases parsing f-score to 85.2%, resulting in 6% error reduction over the previous best result.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P09-1006",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We address the issue of using heterogeneous treebanks for parsing by breaking it down into two sub-problems, converting grammar formalisms of the treebanks to the same one, and parsing on these homogeneous treebanks. First we propose to employ an iteratively trained target grammar parser to perform grammar formalism conversion, eliminating predefined heuristic rules as required in previous methods. Then we provide two strategies to refine conversion results, and adopt a corpus weighting technique for parsing on homogeneous treebanks. Results on the Penn Treebank show that our conversion method achieves 42% error reduction over the previous best result. Evaluation on the Penn Chinese Treebank indicates that a converted dependency treebank helps constituency parsing and the use of unlabeled data by self-training further increases parsing f-score to 85.2%, resulting in 6% error reduction over the previous best result.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "The last few decades have seen the emergence of multiple treebanks annotated with different grammar formalisms, motivated by the diversity of languages and linguistic theories, which is crucial to the success of statistical parsing (Abeille et al., 2000; Brants et al., 1999; Bohmova et al., 2003; Han et al., 2002; Kurohashi and Nagao, 1998; Marcus et al., 1993; Moreno et al., 2003; Xue et al., 2005) . Availability of multiple treebanks creates a scenario where we have a treebank annotated with one grammar formalism, and another treebank annotated with another grammar formalism that we are interested in. We call the first a source treebank, and the second a target treebank. We thus encounter a problem of how to use these heterogeneous treebanks for target grammar parsing. Here heterogeneous treebanks refer to two or more treebanks with different grammar formalisms, e.g., one treebank annotated with dependency structure (DS) and the other annotated with phrase structure (PS).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 232,
"end": 254,
"text": "(Abeille et al., 2000;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 275,
"text": "Brants et al., 1999;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 297,
"text": "Bohmova et al., 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 315,
"text": "Han et al., 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 342,
"text": "Kurohashi and Nagao, 1998;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 363,
"text": "Marcus et al., 1993;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 384,
"text": "Moreno et al., 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 385,
"end": 402,
"text": "Xue et al., 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "It is important to acquire additional labeled data for the target grammar parsing through exploitation of existing source treebanks since there is often a shortage of labeled data. However, to our knowledge, there is no previous study on this issue.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Recently there have been some works on using multiple treebanks for domain adaptation of parsers, where these treebanks have the same grammar formalism (McClosky et al., 2006b; Roark and Bacchiani, 2003) . Other related works focus on converting one grammar formalism of a treebank to another and then conducting studies on the converted treebank (Collins et al., 1999; Forst, 2003; Wang et al., 1994; Watkinson and Manandhar, 2001 ). These works were done either on multiple treebanks with the same grammar formalism or on only one converted treebank. We see that their scenarios are different from ours as we work with multiple heterogeneous treebanks.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 152,
"end": 176,
"text": "(McClosky et al., 2006b;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 203,
"text": "Roark and Bacchiani, 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 369,
"text": "(Collins et al., 1999;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 382,
"text": "Forst, 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 401,
"text": "Wang et al., 1994;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 402,
"end": 431,
"text": "Watkinson and Manandhar, 2001",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "For the use of heterogeneous treebanks 1 , we propose a two-step solution: (1) converting the grammar formalism of the source treebank to the target one, (2) refining converted trees and using them as additional training data to build a target grammar parser.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "For grammar formalism conversion, we choose the DS to PS direction for the convenience of the comparison with existing works (Xia and Palmer, 2001; Xia et al., 2008) . Specifically, we assume that the source grammar formalism is dependency grammar, and the target grammar formalism is phrase structure grammar.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 147,
"text": "(Xia and Palmer, 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 165,
"text": "Xia et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Previous methods for DS to PS conversion (Collins et al., 1999; Covington, 1994; Xia and Palmer, 2001; Xia et al., 2008) often rely on predefined heuristic rules to eliminate converison ambiguity, e.g., minimal projection for dependents, lowest attachment position for dependents, and the selection of conversion rules that add fewer number of nodes to the converted tree. In addition, the validity of these heuristic rules often depends on their target grammars. To eliminate the heuristic rules as required in previous methods, we propose to use an existing target grammar parser (trained on the target treebank) to generate N-best parses for each sentence in the source treebank as conversion candidates, and then select the parse consistent with the structure of the source tree as the converted tree. Furthermore, we attempt to use converted trees as additional training data to retrain the parser for better conversion candidates. The procedure of tree conversion and parser retraining will be run iteratively until a stopping condition is satisfied.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 63,
"text": "(Collins et al., 1999;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 80,
"text": "Covington, 1994;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 102,
"text": "Xia and Palmer, 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 120,
"text": "Xia et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Since some converted trees might be imperfect from the perspective of the target grammar, we provide two strategies to refine conversion results: (1) pruning low-quality trees from the converted treebank, (2) interpolating the scores from the source grammar and the target grammar to select better converted trees. Finally we adopt a corpus weighting technique to get an optimal combination of the converted treebank and the existing target treebank for parser training.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We have evaluated our conversion algorithm on a dependency structure treebank (produced from the Penn Treebank) for comparison with previous work (Xia et al., 2008) . We also have investigated our two-step solution on two existing treebanks, the Penn Chinese Treebank (CTB) (Xue et al., 2005) and the Chinese Dependency Treebank (CDT) 2 (Liu et al., 2006) . Evaluation on WSJ data demonstrates that it is feasible to use a parser for grammar formalism conversion and the conversion benefits from converted trees used for parser retraining. Our conversion method achieves 93.8% f-score on dependency trees produced from WSJ section 22, resulting in 42% error reduction over the previous best result for DS to PS conversion. Results on CTB show that score interpolation is 2 Available at http://ir.hit.edu.cn/. more effective than instance pruning for the use of converted treebanks for parsing and converted CDT helps parsing on CTB. When coupled with self-training technique, a reranking parser with CTB and converted CDT as labeled data achieves 85.2% f-score on CTB test set, an absolute 1.0% improvement (6% error reduction) over the previous best result for Chinese parsing.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 164,
"text": "(Xia et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 292,
"text": "(Xue et al., 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 355,
"text": "(Liu et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we first describe a parser based method for DS to PS conversion, and then we discuss possible strategies to refine conversion results, and finally we adopt the corpus weighting technique for parsing on homogeneous treebanks. Section 3 provides experimental results of grammar formalism conversion on a dependency treebank produced from the Penn Treebank. In Section 4, we evaluate our two-step solution on two existing heterogeneous Chinese treebanks. Section 5 reviews related work and Section 6 concludes this work.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "2 Our Two-Step Solution",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Previous DS to PS conversion methods built a converted tree by iteratively attaching nodes and edges to the tree with the help of conversion rules and heuristic rules, based on current headdependent pair from a source dependency tree and the structure of the built tree (Collins et al., 1999; Covington, 1994; Xia and Palmer, 2001; Xia et al., 2008) . Some observations can be made on these methods: (1) for each head-dependent pair, only one locally optimal conversion was kept during tree-building process, at the risk of pruning globally optimal conversions, (2) heuristic rules are required to deal with the problem that one head-dependent pair might have multiple conversion candidates, and these heuristic rules are usually hand-crafted to reflect the structural preference in their target grammars. To overcome these limitations, we propose to employ a parser to generate N-best parses as conversion candidates and then use the structural information of source trees to select the best parse as a converted tree.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 270,
"end": 292,
"text": "(Collins et al., 1999;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 309,
"text": "Covington, 1994;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 331,
"text": "Xia and Palmer, 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 349,
"text": "Xia et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "We formulate our conversion method as follows.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Let C DS be a source treebank annotated with DS and C P S be a target treebank annotated with PS. Our goal is to convert the grammar formalism of C DS to that of C P S .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "We first train a constituency parser on C P S Input: C P S , C DS , Q, and a constituency parser",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Output: Converted trees C DS P S",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "1. Initialize: -Set C DS,0 P S as null, DevScore=0, q=0; -Split C P S into training set C P S,train and development set C P S,dev ; -Train the parser on C P S,train and denote it by P q\u22121 ; 2. Repeat: -Use P q\u22121 to generate N-best PS parses for each sentence in C DS , and convert PS to DS for each parse; -For each sentence in C DS Do t =argmax t Score(x i,t ), and select thet-th parse as a converted tree for this sentence;",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "-Let C DS,q P S represent these converted trees, and let C train =C P S,train C DS,q P S ; -Train the parser on C train , and denote the updated parser by P q ; -Let DevScore q be the f-score of P q on C P S,dev ; -If DevScore q > DevScore Then DevScore=DevScore q , and C DS P S =C DS,q P S ; -Else break; -q++; Until q > Q (90% trees in C P S as training set C P S,train , and other trees as development set C P S,dev ) and then let the parser generate N-best parses for each sentence in C DS .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Let n be the number of sentences (or trees) in C DS and n i be the number of N-best parses generated by the parser for the i-th (1 \u2264 i \u2264 n) sentence in C DS . Let x i,t be the t-th (1 \u2264 t \u2264 n i ) parse for the i-th sentence. Let y i be the tree of the",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "i-th (1 \u2264 i \u2264 n) sentence in C DS .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "To evaluate the quality of x i,t as a conversion candidate for y i , we convert x i,t to a dependency tree (denoted as x DS i,t ) and then use unlabeled dependency f-score to measure the similarity between x DS i,t and y i . Let Score(x i,t ) denote the unlabeled dependency f-score of x DS i,t against y i . Then we determine the converted tree for y i by maximizing Score(x i,t ) over the N-best parses.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "The conversion from PS to DS works as follows:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Step 1. Use a head percolation table to find the head of each constituent in x i,t .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Step 2. Make the head of each non-head child depend on the head of the head child for each constituent.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Unlabeled dependency f-score is a harmonic mean of unlabeled dependency precision and unlabeled dependency recall. Precision measures how many head-dependent word pairs found in x DS i,t are correct and recall is the percentage of headdependent word pairs defined in the gold-standard tree that are found in x DS i,t . Here we do not take dependency tags into consideration for evaluation since they cannot be obtained without more sophisticated rules.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "To improve the quality of N-best parses, we attempt to use the converted trees as additional training data to retrain the parser. The procedure of tree conversion and parser retraining can be run iteratively until a termination condition is satisfied. Here we use the parser's f-score on C P S,dev as a termination criterion. If the update of training data hurts the performance on C P S,dev , then we stop the iteration. Table 1 shows this DS to PS conversion algorithm. Q is an upper limit of the number of loops, and Q \u2265 0.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 422,
"end": 429,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Grammar Formalism Conversion",
"sec_num": "2.1"
},
{
"text": "Through grammar formalism conversion, we have successfully turned the problem of using heterogeneous treebanks for parsing into the problem of parsing on homogeneous treebanks. Before using converted source treebank for parsing, we present two strategies to refine conversion results.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Target Grammar Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Instance Pruning For some sentences in C DS , the parser might fail to generate high quality N-best parses, resulting in inferior converted trees. To clean the converted treebank, we can remove the converted trees with low unlabeled dependency f-scores (defined in Section 2.1) before using the converted treebank for parser training because these trees are misleading training instances. The number of removed trees will be determined by cross validation on development set.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Target Grammar Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Score Interpolation Unlabeled dependency f-scores used in Section 2.1 measure the quality of converted trees from the perspective of the source grammar only. In extreme cases, the top best parses in the N-best list are good conversion candidates but we might select a parse ranked quite low in the N-best list since there might be conflicts of syntactic structure definition between the source grammar and the target grammar. Figure 1 shows an example for illustration of a conflict between the grammar of CDT and that of CTB. According to Chinese head percolation tables used in the PS to DS conversion tool Penn2Malt 3 and Charniak's parser 4 , the head of VP-2 is the word (a preposition, with BA as its POS tag in CTB), and the head of IP-OBJ is . Therefore the word depends on the word . But according to the annotation scheme in CDT (Liu et al., 2006) , the word is a dependent of the word . The conflicts between the two grammars may lead to the problem that the selected parses based on the information of the source grammar might not be preferred from the perspective of the 3 Available at http://w3.msi.vxu.se/\u223cnivre/. 4 Available at http://www.cs.brown.edu/\u223cec/. target grammar.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 839,
"end": 857,
"text": "(Liu et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 426,
"end": 434,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Target Grammar Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Therefore we modified the selection metric in Section 2.1 by interpolating two scores, the probability of a conversion candidate from the parser and its unlabeled dependency f-score, shown as follows:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Target Grammar Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "Score(x i,t ) = \u03bb\u00d7P rob(x i,t )+(1\u2212\u03bb)\u00d7Score(x i,t ). (1)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Target Grammar Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "The intuition behind this equation is that converted trees should be preferred from the perspective of both the source grammar and the target grammar. Here 0 \u2264 \u03bb \u2264 1. P rob(x i,t ) is a probability produced by the parser for",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Target Grammar Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "x i,t (0 \u2264 P rob(x i,t ) \u2264 1).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Target Grammar Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "The value of \u03bb will be tuned by cross validation on development set.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Target Grammar Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "After grammar formalism conversion, the problem now we face has been limited to how to build parsing models on multiple homogeneous treebank. A possible solution is to simply concatenate the two treebanks as training data. However this method may lead to a problem that if the size of C P S is significantly less than that of converted C DS , converted C DS may weaken the effect C P S might have. One possible solution is to reduce the weight of examples from converted C DS in parser training. Corpus weighting is exactly such an approach, with the weight tuned on development set, that will be used for parsing on homogeneous treebanks in this paper. We employed Charniak's maximum entropy inspired parser (Charniak, 2000) to generate N-best (N=200) parses. Xia et al. (2008) used POS tag information, dependency structures and dependency tags in test set for conversion. Similarly, we used POS tag information in the test set to restrict search space of the parser for generation of better N-best parses.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 709,
"end": 725,
"text": "(Charniak, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 761,
"end": 778,
"text": "Xia et al. (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Target Grammar Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "We evaluated two variants of our DS to PS conversion algorithm: Q-0-method: We set the value of Q as 0 for a baseline method. Q-10-method: We set the value of Q as 10 to see whether it is helpful for conversion to retrain the parser on converted trees. Table 2 shows the results of our conversion algorithm on WSJ section 22. In the experiment of Q-10-method, DevScore reached the highest value of 88.0% when q was 1. Then we used C DS, 1 P S as the conversion result. Finally Q-10method achieved an f-score of 93.8% on WSJ section 22, an absolute 4.4% improvement (42% error reduction) over the best result of Xia et al. (2008) . Moreover, Q-10-method outperformed Q-0-method on the same test set. These results indicate that it is feasible to use a parser for DS to PS conversion and the conversion benefits from the use of converted trees for parser retraining.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 433,
"end": 436,
"text": "DS,",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 442,
"text": "1 P S",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 628,
"text": "Xia et al. (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 253,
"end": 260,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Target Grammar Parsing",
"sec_num": "2.2"
},
{
"text": "In this experiment we evaluated our conversion algorithm on a larger test set, WSJ section 2\u223c18 and 20\u223c22 (totally 39688 sentences). Here we also used WSJ section 19 as C P S . Other settings for All the sentences LR LP F Training data (%) (%) (%) 1 \u00d7 CT B + CDT P S 84.7 85.1 84.9 2 \u00d7 CT B + CDT P S 85.1 85.6 85.3 5 \u00d7 CT B + CDT P S 85.0 85.5 85.3 10 \u00d7 CT B + CDT P S 85.3 85.8 85.6 20 \u00d7 CT B + CDT P S 85.1 85.3 85.2 50 \u00d7 CT B + CDT P S 84.9 85.3 85.1 Table 4 : Results of the generative parser on the development set, when trained with various weighting of CTB training set and CDT P S . this experiment are as same as that in Section 3.1, except that here we used a larger test set. Table 3 provides the f-scores of our method with Q equal to 0 or 10 on WSJ section 2\u223c18 and 20\u223c22.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 263,
"end": 266,
"text": "P S",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 300,
"text": "P S",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 334,
"text": "P S",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 455,
"end": 462,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 688,
"end": 695,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation on WSJ section 2\u223c18 and 20\u223c22",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "With Q-10-method, DevScore reached the highest value of 91.6% when q was 1. Finally Q-10-method achieved an f-score of 93.6% on WSJ section 2\u223c18 and 20\u223c22, better than that of Q-0method and comparable with that of Q-10-method in Section 3.1. It confirms our previous finding that the conversion benefits from the use of converted trees for parser retraining.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation on WSJ section 2\u223c18 and 20\u223c22",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "We investigated our two-step solution on two existing treebanks, CDT and CTB, and we used CDT as the source treebank and CTB as the target treebank.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments of Parsing",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "CDT consists of 60k Chinese sentences, annotated with POS tag information and dependency structure information (including 28 POS tags, and 24 dependency tags) (Liu et al., 2006) . We did not use POS tag information as inputs to the parser in our conversion method due to the difficulty of conversion from CDT POS tags to CTB POS tags.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 177,
"text": "(Liu et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments of Parsing",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We used a standard split of CTB for performance evaluation, articles 1-270 and 400-1151 as training set, articles 301-325 as development set, and articles 271-300 as test set.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments of Parsing",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We used Charniak's maximum entropy inspired parser and their reranker (Charniak and Johnson, 2005) for target grammar parsing, called a generative parser (GP) and a reranking parser (RP) respectively. We reported ParseVal measures from the EVALB tool. Table 5 : Results of the generative parser (GP) and the reranking parser (RP) on the test set, when trained on only CTB training set or an optimal combination of CTB training set and CDT P S .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 98,
"text": "(Charniak and Johnson, 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 252,
"end": 259,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments of Parsing",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We used our conversion algorithm 6 to convert the grammar formalism of CDT to that of CTB. Let CDT P S denote the converted CDT by our method. The average unlabeled dependency f-score of trees in CDT P S was 74.4%, and their average index in 200-best list was 48.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results of a Baseline Method to Use CDT",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "We tried the corpus weighting method when combining CDT P S with CTB training set (abbreviated as CTB for simplicity) as training data, by gradually increasing the weight (including 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50) of CTB to optimize parsing performance on the development set. Table 4 presents the results of the generative parser with various weights of CTB on the development set. Considering the performance on the development set, we decided to give CTB a relative weight of 10.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 266,
"end": 273,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results of a Baseline Method to Use CDT",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Finally we evaluated two parsing models, the generative parser and the reranking parser, on the test set, with results shown in Table 5 . When trained on CTB only, the generative parser and the reranking parser achieved f-scores of 81.0% and 83.3%. The use of CDT P S as additional training data increased f-scores of the two models to 81.5% and 83.8%.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 128,
"end": 135,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Results of a Baseline Method to Use CDT",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "We used unlabeled dependency f-score of each converted tree as the criterion to rank trees in CDT P S and then kept only the top M trees with high f-scores as training data for parsing, resulting in a corpus CDT P S M . M varied from 100%\u00d7|CDT P S | to 10%\u00d7|CDT P S | with 10%\u00d7|CDT P S | as the interval. Table 6 : Results of the generative parser and the reranking parser on the test set, when trained on an optimal combination of CTB training set and converted CDT.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 305,
"end": 312,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Instance Pruning",
"sec_num": "4.2.1"
},
{
"text": "is the number of trees in CDT P S . Then we tuned the value of M by optimizing the parser's performance on the development set with 10\u00d7CTB+CDT P S M as training data. Finally the optimal value of M was 100%\u00d7|CDT|. It indicates that even removing very few converted trees hurts the parsing performance. A possible reason is that most of non-perfect parses can provide useful syntactic structure information for building parsing models.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Instance Pruning",
"sec_num": "4.2.1"
},
{
"text": "We used Score(x i,t ) 7 to replace Score(x i,t ) in our conversion algorithm and then ran the updated algorithm on CDT. Let CDT P S \u03bb denote the converted CDT by this updated conversion algorithm. The values of \u03bb (varying from 0.0 to 1.0 with 0.1 as the interval) and the CTB weight (including 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50) were simultaneously tuned on the development set 8 . Finally we decided that the optimal value of \u03bb was 0.4 and the optimal weight of CTB was 1, which brought the best performance on the development set (an f-score of 86.1%). In comparison with the results in Section 4.1, the average index of converted trees in 200-best list increased to 2, and their average unlabeled dependency f-score dropped to 65.4%. It indicates that structures of converted trees become more consistent with the target grammar, as indicated by the increase of average index of converted trees, further away from the source grammar. Table 6 provides f-scores of the generative parser and the reranker on the test set, when trained on CTB and CDT P S \u03bb . We see that the performance of the reranking parser increased to 7 Before calculating Score(x i,t ),",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 923,
"end": 930,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Score Interpolation",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "we normalized the values of P rob(x i,t ) for each N-best list by",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Score Interpolation",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "(1)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Score Interpolation",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "P rob(x i,t )=P rob(x i,t )-Min(P rob(x i, * )), (2)P rob(x i,t )=P rob(x i,t )/Max(P rob(x i, * )),",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Score Interpolation",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "resulting in that their maximum value was 1 and their minimum value was 0.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Score Interpolation",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "8 Due to space constraint, we do not show f-scores of the parser with different values of \u03bb and the CTB weight.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Score Interpolation",
"sec_num": "4.2.2"
},
{
"text": "Training data (%) (%) (%) Self-trained GP 10\u00d7T +10\u00d7D+P 83.0 84.5 83.7",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "All the sentences LR LP F Models",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Updated RP CT B+CDT P S \u03bb 84.3 86.1 85.2 Table 7 : Results of the self-trained generative parser and updated reranking parser on the test set. 10\u00d7T+10\u00d7D+P stands for 10\u00d7CTB+10\u00d7CDT P S \u03bb +PDC.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 48,
"text": "Table 7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "All the sentences LR LP F Models",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "84.2% f-score, better than the result of the reranking parser with CTB and CDT P S as training data (shown in Table 5 ). It indicates that the use of probability information from the parser for tree conversion helps target grammar parsing.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 117,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "All the sentences LR LP F Models",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Recent studies on parsing indicate that the use of unlabeled data by self-training can help parsing on the WSJ data, even when labeled data is relatively large (McClosky et al., 2006a; Reichart and Rappoport, 2007) . It motivates us to employ self-training technique for Chinese parsing. We used the POS tagged People Daily corpus 9 (Jan. 1998\u223cJun. 1998 , and Jan. 2000\u223cDec. 2000 ) (PDC) as unlabeled data for parsing. First we removed the sentences with less than 3 words or more than 40 words from PDC to ease parsing, resulting in 820k sentences. Then we ran the reranking parser in Section 4.2.2 on PDC and used the parses on PDC as additional training data for the generative parser. Here we tried the corpus weighting technique for an optimal combination of CTB, CDT P S \u03bb and parsed PDC, and chose the relative weight of both CTB and CDT P S \u03bb as 10 by cross validation on the development set. Finally we retrained the generative parser on CTB, CDT P S \u03bb and parsed PDC. Furthermore, we used this self-trained generative parser as a base parser to retrain the reranker on CTB and CDT P S \u03bb . Table 7 shows the performance of self-trained generative parser and updated reranker on the test set, with CTB and CDT P S \u03bb as labeled data. We see that the use of unlabeled data by self-training further increased the reranking parser's performance from 84.2% to 85.2%. Our results on Chinese data confirm previous findings on English data shown in (McClosky et al., 2006a; Reichart and Rappoport, 2007) . 9 Available at http://icl.pku.edu.cn/.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 184,
"text": "(McClosky et al., 2006a;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 214,
"text": "Reichart and Rappoport, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 353,
"text": "9 (Jan. 1998\u223cJun. 1998",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 379,
"text": ", and Jan. 2000\u223cDec. 2000",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1449,
"end": 1473,
"text": "(McClosky et al., 2006a;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 1474,
"end": 1503,
"text": "Reichart and Rappoport, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 1506,
"end": 1507,
"text": "9",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1099,
"end": 1106,
"text": "Table 7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Using Unlabeled Data for Parsing",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Chinese Parsing Table 8 and 9 present the results of previous studies on CTB. All the works in Table 8 used CTB articles 1-270 as labeled data. In Table 9 , Petrov and Klein (2007) trained their model on CTB articles 1-270 and 400-1151, and Burkett and Klein (2008) used the same CTB articles and parse trees of their English translation (from the English Chinese Translation Treebank) as training data. Comparing our result in Table 6 with that of Petrov and Klein (2007) , we see that CDT P S \u03bb helps parsing on CTB, which brought 0.9% f-score improvement. Moreover, the use of unlabeled data further boosted the parsing performance to 85.2%, an absolute 1.0% improvement over the previous best result presented in Burkett and Klein (2008) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 157,
"end": 180,
"text": "Petrov and Klein (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 265,
"text": "Burkett and Klein (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 449,
"end": 472,
"text": "Petrov and Klein (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 717,
"end": 741,
"text": "Burkett and Klein (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 23,
"text": "Table 8",
"ref_id": "TABREF7"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 102,
"text": "Table 8",
"ref_id": "TABREF7"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 154,
"text": "Table 9",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 428,
"end": 435,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison with Previous Studies for",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "Recently there have been some studies addressing how to use treebanks with same grammar formalism for domain adaptation of parsers. Roark and Bachiani (2003) presented count merging and model interpolation techniques for domain adaptation of parsers. They showed that their system with count merging achieved a higher performance when in-domain data was weighted more heavily than out-of-domain data. McClosky et al. (2006b) used self-training and corpus weighting to adapt their parser trained on WSJ corpus to Brown corpus. Their results indicated that both unlabeled in-domain data and labeled out-of-domain data can help domain adaptation. In comparison with these works, we conduct our study in a different setting where we work with multiple heterogeneous treebanks.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 157,
"text": "Roark and Bachiani (2003)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 424,
"text": "McClosky et al. (2006b)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "Grammar formalism conversion makes it possible to reuse existing source treebanks for the study of target grammar parsing. Wang et al. (1994) employed a parser to help conversion of a treebank from a simple phrase structure to a more informative phrase structure and then used this converted treebank to train their parser. Collins et al. (1999) performed statistical constituency parsing of Czech on a treebank that was converted from the Prague Dependency Treebank under the guidance of conversion rules and heuristic rules, e.g., one level of projection for any category, minimal projection for any dependents, and fixed position of attachment. Xia and Palmer (2001) Bikel & Chiang (2000) 76.8 77.8 77.3 --- Chiang & Bikel (2002) 78.8 81.1 79.9 --- Levy & Manning (2003) 79.2 78.4 78.8 ---Bikel's thesis (2004) 78.0 81.2 79.6 --- Xiong et. al. (2005) 78.7 80.1 79.4 --- Chen et. al. (2005) 81.0 81.7 81.2 76.3 79.2 77.7 Wang et. al. (2006) 79.2 81.1 80.1 76.2 78.0 77.1 Table 9 : Results of previous studies on CTB with more labeled data.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 141,
"text": "Wang et al. (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 345,
"text": "Collins et al. (1999)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 648,
"end": 669,
"text": "Xia and Palmer (2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 670,
"end": 691,
"text": "Bikel & Chiang (2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 711,
"end": 732,
"text": "Chiang & Bikel (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 752,
"end": 773,
"text": "Levy & Manning (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
},
{
"start": 807,
"end": 813,
"text": "(2004)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 833,
"end": 853,
"text": "Xiong et. al. (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 873,
"end": 892,
"text": "Chen et. al. (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 923,
"end": 942,
"text": "Wang et. al. (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 973,
"end": 980,
"text": "Table 9",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "reflected the structural preference in their target grammar. For acquisition of better conversion rules, Xia et al. (2008) proposed to automatically extract conversion rules from a target treebank. Moreover, they presented two strategies to solve the problem that there might be multiple conversion rules matching the same input dependency tree pattern: (1) choosing the most frequent rules, (2) preferring rules that add fewer number of nodes and attach the subtree lower.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 122,
"text": "Xia et al. (2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "In comparison with the works of Wang et al. (1994) and Collins et al. (1999) , we went further by combining the converted treebank with the existing target treebank for parsing. In comparison with previous conversion methods (Collins et al., 1999; Covington, 1994; Xia and Palmer, 2001; Xia et al., 2008) in which for each headdependent pair, only one locally optimal conversion was kept during tree-building process, we employed a parser to generate globally optimal syntactic structures, eliminating heuristic rules for conversion. In addition, we used converted trees to retrain the parser for better conversion candidates, while Wang et al. (1994) did not exploit the use of converted trees for parser retraining.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 50,
"text": "Wang et al. (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 76,
"text": "Collins et al. (1999)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 247,
"text": "(Collins et al., 1999;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 264,
"text": "Covington, 1994;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 286,
"text": "Xia and Palmer, 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF27"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 304,
"text": "Xia et al., 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 633,
"end": 651,
"text": "Wang et al. (1994)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We have proposed a two-step solution to deal with the issue of using heterogeneous treebanks for parsing. First we present a parser based method to convert grammar formalisms of the treebanks to the same one, without applying predefined heuristic rules, thus turning the original problem into the problem of parsing on homogeneous treebanks.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Then we present two strategies, instance pruning and score interpolation, to refine conversion results. Finally we adopt the corpus weighting technique to combine the converted source treebank with the existing target treebank for parser training.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "The study on the WSJ data shows the benefits of our parser based approach for grammar formalism conversion. Moreover, experimental results on the Penn Chinese Treebank indicate that a converted dependency treebank helps constituency parsing, and it is better to exploit probability information produced by the parser through score interpolation than to prune low quality trees for the use of the converted treebank.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Future work includes further investigation of our conversion method for other pairs of grammar formalisms, e.g., from the grammar formalism of the Penn Treebank to more deep linguistic formalism like CCG, HPSG, or LFG.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Here we assume the existence of two treebanks.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We used the tool Penn2Malt to produce dependency structures from the Penn Treebank, which was also used for PS to DS conversion in our conversion algorithm.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "The setting for our conversion algorithm in this experiment was as same as that in Section 3.1. In addition, we used CTB training set as C P S,train , and CTB development set as C P S,dev .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Building a Treebank for French",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Anne",
"middle": [],
"last": "Abeille",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lionel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Clement",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Francois",
"middle": [],
"last": "Toussenel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of LREC 2000",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "87--94",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Anne Abeille, Lionel Clement and Francois Toussenel. 2000. Building a Treebank for French. In Proceedings of LREC 2000, pages 87-94.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Two Statistical Parsing Models Applied to the Chinese Treebank",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bikel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chiang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Second SIGHAN workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--6",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Daniel Bikel and David Chiang. 2000. Two Statistical Pars- ing Models Applied to the Chinese Treebank. In Proceed- ings of the Second SIGHAN workshop, pages 1-6.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "On the Parameter Space of Generative Lexicalized Statistical Parsing Models",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bikel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Daniel Bikel. 2004. On the Parameter Space of Generative Lexicalized Statistical Parsing Models. Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versity of Pennsylvania.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "The Prague Dependency Treebank: A Three-Level Annotation Scenario. Treebanks: Building and Using Annotated Corpora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alena",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bohmova",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hajic",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eva",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hajicova",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Barbora",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vidova-Hladka",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "103--127",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Alena Bohmova, Jan Hajic, Eva Hajicova and Barbora Vidova-Hladka. 2003. The Prague Dependency Tree- bank: A Three-Level Annotation Scenario. Treebanks: Building and Using Annotated Corpora. Kluwer Aca- demic Publishers, pages 103-127.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Syntactic Annotation of a German Newspaper Corpus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Thorsten",
"middle": [],
"last": "Brants",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Wojciech",
"middle": [],
"last": "Skut",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hans",
"middle": [],
"last": "Uszkoreit",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Proceedings of the ATALA Treebank Workshop",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "69--76",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Thorsten Brants, Wojciech Skut and Hans Uszkoreit. 1999. Syntactic Annotation of a German Newspaper Corpus. In Proceedings of the ATALA Treebank Workshop, pages 69- 76.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "Two Languages are Better than One (for Syntactic Parsing)",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Burkett",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of EMNLP 2008",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "877--886",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David Burkett and Dan Klein. 2008. Two Languages are Better than One (for Syntactic Parsing). In Proceedings of EMNLP 2008, pages 877-886.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "A Maximum Entropy Inspired Parser",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Eugene",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charniak",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Proceedings of NAACL 2000",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "132--139",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eugene Charniak. 2000. A Maximum Entropy Inspired Parser. In Proceedings of NAACL 2000, pages 132-139.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Coarse-to-Fine N-Best Parsing and MaxEnt Discriminative Reranking",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Eugene",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charniak",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL 2005",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "173--180",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Eugene Charniak and Mark Johnson. 2005. Coarse-to-Fine N-Best Parsing and MaxEnt Discriminative Reranking. In Proceedings of ACL 2005, pages 173-180.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "A Corrigendum to Sun and Jurafsky (2004) Shallow Semantic Parsing of Chinese",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ying",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hongling",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sun",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Jurafsky",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ying Chen, Hongling Sun and Dan Jurafsky. 2005. A Cor- rigendum to Sun and Jurafsky (2004) Shallow Semantic Parsing of Chinese. University of Colorado at Boulder CSLR Tech Report TR-CSLR-2005-01.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Recovering Latent Information in Treebanks",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chiang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Bikel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of COL-ING 2002",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--7",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David Chiang and Daniel M. Bikel. 2002. Recovering La- tent Information in Treebanks. In Proceedings of COL- ING 2002, pages 1-7.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Hajic and Christoph Tillmann. 1999. A Statistical Parser for Czech",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Micheal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collins",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lance",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ramshaw",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": null,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL 1999",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "505--512",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Micheal Collins, Lance Ramshaw, Jan Hajic and Christoph Tillmann. 1999. A Statistical Parser for Czech. In Pro- ceedings of ACL 1999, pages 505-512.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "GB Theory as Dependency Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Micheal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Covington",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Micheal Covington. 1994. GB Theory as Dependency Grammar. Research Report AI-1992-03.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Treebank Conversion -Establishing a Testsuite for a Broad-Coverage LFG from the TIGER Treebank",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Martin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Forst",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of LINC at EACL 2003",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "25--32",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Martin Forst. 2003. Treebank Conversion -Establishing a Testsuite for a Broad-Coverage LFG from the TIGER Treebank. In Proceedings of LINC at EACL 2003, pages 25-32.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Development and Evaluation of a Korean Treebank and its Application to NLP",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Chunghye",
"middle": [],
"last": "Han",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Narae",
"middle": [],
"last": "Han",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eonsuk",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ko",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of LREC 2002",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1635--1642",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Chunghye Han, Narae Han, Eonsuk Ko and Martha Palmer. 2002. Development and Evaluation of a Korean Treebank and its Application to NLP. In Proceedings of LREC 2002, pages 1635-1642.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Building a Japanese Parsed Corpus While Improving the Parsing System",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sadao",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kurohashi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Makato",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nagao",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "Proceedings of LREC 1998",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "719--724",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sadao Kurohashi and Makato Nagao. 1998. Building a Japanese Parsed Corpus While Improving the Parsing Sys- tem. In Proceedings of LREC 1998, pages 719-724.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Is It Harder to Parse Chinese, or the Chinese Treebank?",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Roger",
"middle": [],
"last": "Levy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Christopher",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manning",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL 2003",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "439--446",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Roger Levy and Christopher Manning. 2003. Is It Harder to Parse Chinese, or the Chinese Treebank? In Proceedings of ACL 2003, pages 439-446.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Building a Dependency Treebank for Improving Chinese Parser",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ting",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jinshan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ma",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sheng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Journal of Chinese Language and Computing",
"volume": "16",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "207--224",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ting Liu, Jinshan Ma and Sheng Li. 2006. Building a Depen- dency Treebank for Improving Chinese Parser. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, 16(4):207-224.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"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": "2",
"pages": "313--330",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mitchell P. Marcus, Beatrice Santorini and Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a Large Annotated Cor- pus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Lin- guistics, 19(2):313-330.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Effective Self-Training for Parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mcclosky",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eugene",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charniak",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of NAACL 2006",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "152--159",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David McClosky, Eugene Charniak and Mark Johnson. 2006a. Effective Self-Training for Parsing. In Proceed- ings of NAACL 2006, pages 152-159.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Reranking and Self-Training for Parser Adaptation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mcclosky",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eugene",
"middle": [],
"last": "Charniak",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Johnson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLING/ACL 2006",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "337--344",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "David McClosky, Eugene Charniak and Mark Johnson. 2006b. Reranking and Self-Training for Parser Adapta- tion. In Proceedings of COLING/ACL 2006, pages 337- 344.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Developing a Syntactic Annotation Scheme and Tools for a Spanish Treebank. Treebanks: Building and Using Annotated Corpora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Antonio",
"middle": [],
"last": "Moreno",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Susana",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lopez",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sanchez",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ralph",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grishman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "149--163",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Antonio Moreno, Susana Lopez, Fernando Sanchez and Ralph Grishman. 2003. Developing a Syntactic Anno- tation Scheme and Tools for a Spanish Treebank. Tree- banks: Building and Using Annotated Corpora. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pages 149-163.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "Improved Inference for Unlexicalized Parsing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Slav",
"middle": [],
"last": "Petrov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Klein",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of HLT/NAACL 2007",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "404--411",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Slav Petrov and Dan Klein. 2007. Improved Inference for Unlexicalized Parsing. In Proceedings of HLT/NAACL 2007, pages 404-411.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "Self-Training for Enhancement and Domain Adaptation of Statistical Parsers Trained on Small Datasets",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Roi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Reichart",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ari",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rappoport",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL 2007",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "616--623",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Roi Reichart and Ari Rappoport. 2007. Self-Training for En- hancement and Domain Adaptation of Statistical Parsers Trained on Small Datasets. In Proceedings of ACL 2007, pages 616-623.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Supervised and Unsupervised PCFG Adaptation to Novel Domains",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Brian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Roark",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michiel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bacchiani",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of HLT/NAACL 2003",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "126--133",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Brian Roark and Michiel Bacchiani. 2003. Supervised and Unsupervised PCFG Adaptation to Novel Domains. In Proceedings of HLT/NAACL 2003, pages 126-133.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "An Automatic Treebank Conversion Algorithm for Corpus Sharing",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jong-Nae",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jing-Shin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Keh-Yih",
"middle": [],
"last": "Su",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL 1994",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "248--254",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Jong-Nae Wang, Jing-Shin Chang and Keh-Yih Su. 1994. An Automatic Treebank Conversion Algorithm for Corpus Sharing. In Proceedings of ACL 1994, pages 248-254.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "A Fast, Accurate Deterministic Parser for Chinese",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mengqiu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kenji",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sagae",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Teruko",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mitamura",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of COLING/ACL 2006",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "425--432",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mengqiu Wang, Kenji Sagae and Teruko Mitamura. 2006. A Fast, Accurate Deterministic Parser for Chinese. In Pro- ceedings of COLING/ACL 2006, pages 425-432.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Translating Treebank Annotation for Evaluation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Stephen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Watkinson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Suresh",
"middle": [],
"last": "Manandhar",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Evaluation Methodologies for Language and Dialogue Systems",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--8",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stephen Watkinson and Suresh Manandhar. 2001. Translat- ing Treebank Annotation for Evaluation. In Proceedings of ACL Workshop on Evaluation Methodologies for Lan- guage and Dialogue Systems, pages 1-8.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "Converting Dependency Structures to Phrase Structures",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xia",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of HLT 2001",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--5",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fei Xia and Martha Palmer. 2001. Converting Dependency Structures to Phrase Structures. In Proceedings of HLT 2001, pages 1-5.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Towards a Multi-Representational Treebank",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xia",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rajesh",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bhatt",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Owen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Rambow",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Dipti",
"middle": [],
"last": "Misra",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sharma",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "159--170",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Fei Xia, Rajesh Bhatt, Owen Rambow, Martha Palmer and Dipti Misra. Sharma. 2008. Towards a Multi- Representational Treebank. In Proceedings of the 7th In- ternational Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theo- ries, pages 159-170.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "Parsing the Penn Chinese Treebank with Semantic Knowledge",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Deyi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xiong",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shuanglong",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Qun",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shouxun",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lin",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yueliang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Qian",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of IJC-NLP 2005",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "70--81",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Deyi Xiong, Shuanglong Li, Qun Liu, Shouxun Lin and Yueliang Qian. 2005. Parsing the Penn Chinese Tree- bank with Semantic Knowledge. In Proceedings of IJC- NLP 2005, pages 70-81.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "The Penn Chinese TreeBank: Phrase Structure Annotation of a Large Corpus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nianwen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xue",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xia",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fu-Dong",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chiou",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Natural Language Engineering",
"volume": "11",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "207--238",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nianwen Xue, Fei Xia, Fu-Dong Chiou and Martha Palmer. 2005. The Penn Chinese TreeBank: Phrase Structure An- notation of a Large Corpus. Natural Language Engineer- ing, 11(2):207-238.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"text": "A parse tree in CTB for a sentence of <world> <every> <country> <people> <all> <with> <eyes> <cast> <Hong Kong> with People from all over the world are casting their eyes on Hong Kong as its English translation.",
"uris": null,
"num": null,
"type_str": "figure"
},
"TABREF0": {
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Our algorithm for DS to PS conversion.",
"html": null
},
"TABREF2": {
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">All the sentences</td></tr><tr><td/><td>DevScore</td><td>LR</td><td>LP</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td>Models</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td></tr><tr><td>Q-0-method</td><td>91.0</td><td colspan=\"3\">91.6 92.5 92.1</td></tr><tr><td>Q-10-method</td><td>91.6</td><td colspan=\"3\">93.1 94.1 93.6</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Comparison with the work of Xia et al. (2008) on WSJ section 22.",
"html": null
},
"TABREF3": {
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Results of our algorithm on WSJ section 2\u223c18 and 20\u223c22.",
"html": null
},
"TABREF4": {
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">All the sentences</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>LR</td><td>LP</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td>Models</td><td>Training data</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td></tr><tr><td>GP</td><td>CT B</td><td colspan=\"3\">79.9 82.2 81.0</td></tr><tr><td>RP</td><td>CT B</td><td colspan=\"3\">82.0 84.6 83.3</td></tr><tr><td>GP</td><td>10 \u00d7</td><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "CT B + CDT P S 80.4 82.7 81.5 RP 10 \u00d7 CT B + CDTP S 82.8 84.7 83.8",
"html": null
},
"TABREF5": {
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">All the sentences</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td>LR</td><td>LP</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td>Models</td><td>Training data</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td></tr><tr><td>GP RP</td><td>CT B + CDT P S \u03bb CT B + CDT P S \u03bb</td><td colspan=\"3\">81.4 82.8 82.1 83.0 85.4 84.2</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "|CDT P S |",
"html": null
},
"TABREF7": {
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"3\">\u2264 40 words</td><td colspan=\"3\">All the sentences</td></tr><tr><td/><td>LR</td><td>LP</td><td>F</td><td>LR</td><td>LP</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td>Models</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td><td>(%)</td></tr><tr><td>Petrov & Klein (2007)</td><td colspan=\"6\">85.7 86.9 86.3 81.9 84.8 83.3</td></tr><tr><td>Burkett & Klein (2008)</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>84.2</td></tr></table>",
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Results of previous studies on CTB with CTB articles 1-270 as labeled data.",
"html": null
}
}
}
} |