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)

Reversible stochastic attribute-value grammars

Een bekende vraag in de taalkunde is de vraag of de mens twee onafhankelijke modules heeft voor taalbegrip en taalproductie. In de computertaalkunde zijn taalbegrip (ontleding) en taalproductie (generatie) in de recente geschiedenis eigenlijk altijd als twee afzonderlijke taken en dus modules behandeld. De hoofdstelling van dit proefschrift is dat ontleding en generatie op een computer door één component uitgevoerd kan worden, zonder slechter te presteren dan afzonderlijke componenten voor ontleding en generatie. De onderliggende redenering is dat veel voorkeuren gedeeld moeten zijn tussen productie en begrip, omdat het anders niet mogelijk zou zijn om een geproduceerde zin te begrijpen. Om deze stelling te onderbouwen is er eerst een generator voor het Nederlands ontwikkeld. Deze generator is vervolgens geïntegreerd met een bestaande ontleder voor het Nederlands. Het proefschrift toont aan dat er inderdaad geen significant verschil is tussen de prestaties van de geïntegreerde module en afzonderlijke begrips- en productiecomponenten. Om een beter begrip te krijgen hoe het gecombineerde model werkt, wordt er zogenaamde `feature selectie’ toegepast. Dit is een techniek om de belangrijkste eigenschappen die een begrijpelijke en vloeiende zin karakteriseren op te sporen. Het proefschrift toont aan dat dit met een klein aantal, voornamelijk taalkundig geïnformeerde eigenschappen bepaald kan worden

Probabilistic Parsing Strategies

We present new results on the relation between purely symbolic context-free parsing strategies and their probabilistic counter-parts. Such parsing strategies are seen as constructions of push-down devices from grammars. We show that preservation of probability distribution is possible under two conditions, viz. the correct-prefix property and the property of strong predictiveness. These results generalize existing results in the literature that were obtained by considering parsing strategies in isolation. From our general results we also derive negative results on so-called generalized LR parsing.Comment: 36 pages, 1 figur

Research in the Language, Information and Computation Laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania

This report takes its name from the Computational Linguistics Feedback Forum (CLiFF), an informal discussion group for students and faculty. However the scope of the research covered in this report is broader than the title might suggest; this is the yearly report of the LINC Lab, the Language, Information and Computation Laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania. It may at first be hard to see the threads that bind together the work presented here, work by faculty, graduate students and postdocs in the Computer Science and Linguistics Departments, and the Institute for Research in Cognitive Science. It includes prototypical Natural Language fields such as: Combinatorial Categorial Grammars, Tree Adjoining Grammars, syntactic parsing and the syntax-semantics interface; but it extends to statistical methods, plan inference, instruction understanding, intonation, causal reasoning, free word order languages, geometric reasoning, medical informatics, connectionism, and language acquisition. Naturally, this introduction cannot spell out all the connections between these abstracts; we invite you to explore them on your own. In fact, with this issue it’s easier than ever to do so: this document is accessible on the “information superhighway”. Just call up http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~cliff-group/94/cliffnotes.html In addition, you can find many of the papers referenced in the CLiFF Notes on the net. Most can be obtained by following links from the authors’ abstracts in the web version of this report. The abstracts describe the researchers’ many areas of investigation, explain their shared concerns, and present some interesting work in Cognitive Science. We hope its new online format makes the CLiFF Notes a more useful and interesting guide to Computational Linguistics activity at Penn