Wide-coverage deep statistical parsing using automatic dependency structure annotation

A number of researchers (Lin 1995; Carroll, Briscoe, and Sanfilippo 1998; Carroll et al. 2002; Clark and Hockenmaier 2002; King et al. 2003; Preiss 2003; Kaplan et al. 2004;Miyao and Tsujii 2004) have convincingly argued for the use of dependency (rather than CFG-tree) representations for parser evaluation. Preiss (2003) and Kaplan et al. (2004) conducted a number of experiments comparing “deep” hand-crafted wide-coverage with “shallow” treebank- and machine-learning based parsers at the level of dependencies, using simple and automatic methods to convert tree output generated by the shallow parsers into dependencies. In this article, we revisit the experiments in Preiss (2003) and Kaplan et al. (2004), this time using the sophisticated automatic LFG f-structure annotation methodologies of Cahill et al. (2002b, 2004) and Burke (2006), with surprising results. We compare various PCFG and history-based parsers (based on Collins, 1999; Charniak, 2000; Bikel, 2002) to find a baseline parsing system that fits best into our automatic dependency structure annotation technique. This combined system of syntactic parser and dependency structure annotation is compared to two hand-crafted, deep constraint-based parsers (Carroll and Briscoe 2002; Riezler et al. 2002). We evaluate using dependency-based gold standards (DCU 105, PARC 700, CBS 500 and dependencies for WSJ Section 22) and use the Approximate Randomization Test (Noreen 1989) to test the statistical significance of the results. Our experiments show that machine-learning-based shallow grammars augmented with sophisticated automatic dependency annotation technology outperform hand-crafted, deep, widecoverage constraint grammars. Currently our best system achieves an f-score of 82.73% against the PARC 700 Dependency Bank (King et al. 2003), a statistically significant improvement of 2.18%over the most recent results of 80.55%for the hand-crafted LFG grammar and XLE parsing system of Riezler et al. (2002), and an f-score of 80.23% against the CBS 500 Dependency Bank (Carroll, Briscoe, and Sanfilippo 1998), a statistically significant 3.66% improvement over the 76.57% achieved by the hand-crafted RASP grammar and parsing system of Carroll and Briscoe (2002)

Syntactic Topic Models

The syntactic topic model (STM) is a Bayesian nonparametric model of language that discovers latent distributions of words (topics) that are both semantically and syntactically coherent. The STM models dependency parsed corpora where sentences are grouped into documents. It assumes that each word is drawn from a latent topic chosen by combining document-level features and the local syntactic context. Each document has a distribution over latent topics, as in topic models, which provides the semantic consistency. Each element in the dependency parse tree also has a distribution over the topics of its children, as in latent-state syntax models, which provides the syntactic consistency. These distributions are convolved so that the topic of each word is likely under both its document and syntactic context. We derive a fast posterior inference algorithm based on variational methods. We report qualitative and quantitative studies on both synthetic data and hand-parsed documents. We show that the STM is a more predictive model of language than current models based only on syntax or only on topics

Probabilistic mathematical formula recognition using a 2D context-free graph grammar

We present a probabilistic framework for the mathematical expression recognition problem. The developed system is flexible in that its grammar can be extended easily thanks to its graph grammar which eliminates the need for specifying rule precedence. It is also optimal in the sense that all possible interpretations of the expressions are expanded without making early commitments or hard decisions. In this paper, we give an overview of the whole system and describe in detail the graph grammar and the parsing process used in the system, along with some preliminary results on character, structure and expression recognition performances