A testsuite for testing parser performance on complex German grammatical constructions [TePaCoC - a corpus for testing parser performance on complex German grammatical constructions]

Traditionally, parsers are evaluated against gold standard test data. This can cause problems if there is a mismatch between the data structures and representations used by the parser and the gold standard. A particular case in point is German, for which two treebanks (TiGer and TüBa-D/Z) are available with highly different annotation schemes for the acquisition of (e.g.) PCFG parsers. The differences between the TiGer and TüBa-D/Z annotation schemes make fair and unbiased parser evaluation difficult [7, 9, 12]. The resource (TEPACOC) presented in this paper takes a different approach to parser evaluation: instead of providing evaluation data in a single annotation scheme, TEPACOC uses comparable sentences and their annotations for 5 selected key grammatical phenomena (with 20 sentences each per phenomena) from both TiGer and TüBa-D/Z resources. This provides a 2 times 100 sentence comparable testsuite which allows us to evaluate TiGer-trained parsers against the TiGer part of TEPACOC, and TüBa-D/Z-trained parsers against the TüBa-D/Z part of TEPACOC for key phenomena, instead of comparing them against a single (and potentially biased) gold standard. To overcome the problem of inconsistency in human evaluation and to bridge the gap between the two different annotation schemes, we provide an extensive error classification, which enables us to compare parser output across the two different treebanks. In the remaining part of the paper we present the testsuite and describe the grammatical phenomena covered in the data. We discuss the different annotation strategies used in the two treebanks to encode these phenomena and present our error classification of potential parser errors

DepAnn - An Annotation Tool for Dependency Treebanks

DepAnn is an interactive annotation tool for dependency treebanks, providing both graphical and text-based annotation interfaces. The tool is aimed for semi-automatic creation of treebanks. It aids the manual inspection and correction of automatically created parses, making the annotation process faster and less error-prone. A novel feature of the tool is that it enables the user to view outputs from several parsers as the basis for creating the final tree to be saved to the treebank. DepAnn uses TIGER-XML, an XML-based general encoding format for both, representing the parser outputs and saving the annotated treebank. The tool includes an automatic consistency checker for sentence structures. In addition, the tool enables users to build structures manually, add comments on the annotations, modify the tagsets, and mark sentences for further revision

How to compare treebanks

Recent years have seen an increasing interest in developing standards for linguistic annotation, with a focus on the interoperability of the resources. This effort, however, requires a profound knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of linguistic annotation schemes in order to avoid importing the flaws and weaknesses of existing encoding schemes into the new standards. This paper addresses the question how to compare syntactically annotated corpora and gain insights into the usefulness of specific design decisions. We present an exhaustive evaluation of two German treebanks with crucially different encoding schemes. We evaluate three different parsers trained on the two treebanks and compare results using EVALB, the Leaf-Ancestor metric, and a dependency-based evaluation. Furthermore, we present TePaCoC, a new testsuite for the evaluation of parsers on complex German grammatical constructions. The testsuite provides a well thought-out error classification, which enables us to compare parser output for parsers trained on treebanks with different encoding schemes and provides interesting insights into the impact of treebank annotation schemes on specific constructions like PP attachment or non-constituent coordination

Treebank-based acquisition of LFG parsing resources for French

Motivated by the expense in time and other resources to produce hand-crafted grammars, there has been increased interest in automatically obtained wide-coverage grammars from treebanks for natural language processing. In particular, recent years have seen the growth in interest in automatically obtained deep resources that can represent information absent from simple CFG-type structured treebanks and which are considered to produce more language-neutral linguistic representations, such as dependency syntactic trees. As is often the case in early pioneering work on natural language processing, English has provided the focus of first efforts towards acquiring deep-grammar resources, followed by successful treatments of, for example, German, Japanese, Chinese and Spanish. However, no comparable large-scale automatically acquired deep-grammar resources have been obtained for French to date. The goal of this paper is to present the application of treebank-based language acquisition to the case of French. We show that with modest changes to the established parsing architectures, encouraging results can be obtained for French, with a best dependency structure f-score of 86.73%

Automatic treebank-based acquisition of Arabic LFG dependency structures

A number of papers have reported on methods for the automatic acquisition of large-scale, probabilistic LFG-based grammatical resources from treebanks for English (Cahill and al., 2002), (Cahill and al., 2004), German (Cahill and al., 2003), Chinese (Burke, 2004), (Guo and al., 2007), Spanish (O’Donovan, 2004), (Chrupala and van Genabith, 2006) and French (Schluter and van Genabith, 2008). Here, we extend the LFG grammar acquisition approach to Arabic and the Penn Arabic Treebank (ATB) (Maamouri and Bies, 2004), adapting and extending the methodology of (Cahill and al., 2004) originally developed for English. Arabic is challenging because of its morphological richness and syntactic complexity. Currently 98% of ATB trees (without FRAG and X) produce a covering and connected f-structure. We conduct a qualitative evaluation of our annotation against a gold standard and achieve an f-score of 95%

Dependency parsing resources for French: Converting acquired lexical functional grammar F-Structure annotations and parsing F-Structures directly

Recent years have seen considerable success in the generation of automatically obtained wide-coverage deep grammars for natural language processing, given reliable and large CFG-like treebanks. For research within Lexical Functional Grammar framework, these deep grammars are typically based on an extended PCFG parsing scheme from which dependencies are extracted. However, increasing success in statistical dependency parsing suggests that such deep grammar approaches to statistical parsing could be streamlined. We explore this novel approach to deep grammar parsing within the framework of LFG in this paper, for French, showing that best results (an f-score of 69.46) for the established integrated architecture may be obtained for French

From phrase structure to dependencies, and back

Transforming constituent-based annotation into dependency-based annotation has been shown to work for different treebanks and annotation schemes (e.g. Lin (1995) has transformed the Penn treebank, and Kübler and Telljohann (2002) the Tübinger Baumbank des Deutschen (TüBa-D/Z)). These ventures are usually triggered by the conflict between theory-neutral annotation, that targets most needs of a wider audience, and theory-specific annotation, that provides more fine-grained information for a smaller audience. As a compromise, it has been pointed out that treebanks can be designed to support more than one theory from the start (Nivre, 2003). We argue that information can also be added to an existing annotation scheme so that it supports additional theory-specific annotations. We also argue that such a transformation is useful for improving and extending the original annotation scheme with respect to both ambiguous annotation and annotation errors. We show this by analysing problems that arise when generating dependency information from the constituent-based TüBa-D/Z

Automatic acquisition of LFG resources for German - as good as it gets

We present data-driven methods for the acquisition of LFG resources from two German treebanks. We discuss problems specific to semi-free word order languages as well as problems arising fromthe data structures determined by the design of the different treebanks. We compare two ways of encoding semi-free word order, as done in the two German treebanks, and argue that the design of the TiGer treebank is more adequate for the acquisition of LFG resources. Furthermore, we describe an architecture for LFG grammar acquisition for German, based on the two German treebanks, and compare our results with a hand-crafted German LFG grammar