Parsing Arabic using treebank-based LFG resources

In this paper we present initial results on parsing Arabic using treebank-based parsers and automatic LFG f-structure annotation methodologies. The Arabic Annotation Algorithm (A3) (Tounsi et al., 2009) exploits the rich functional annotations in the Penn Arabic Treebank (ATB) (Bies and Maamouri, 2003; Maamouri and Bies, 2004) to assign LFG f-structure equations to trees. For parsing, we modify Bikel’s (2004) parser to learn ATB functional tags and merge phrasal categories with functional tags in the training data. Functional tags in parser output trees are then "unmasked" and available to A3 to assign f-structure equations. We evaluate the resulting f-structures against the DCU250 Arabic gold standard dependency bank (Al-Raheb et al., 2006). Currently we achieve a dependency f-score of 77%

"cba to check the spelling" investigating parser performance on discussion forum posts

We evaluate the Berkeley parser on text from an online discussion forum. We evaluate the parser output with and without gold tokens and spellings (using Sparseval and Parseval), and we compile a list of problematic phenomena for this domain. The Parseval f-score for a small development set is 77.56. This increases to 80.27 when we apply a set of simple transformations to the input sentences and to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) training sections

Comparing the use of edited and unedited text in parser self-training

We compare the use of edited text in the form of newswire and unedited text in the form of discussion forum posts as sources for training material in a self-training experiment involving the Brown reranking parser and a test set of sentences from an online sports discussion forum. We find that grammars induced from the two automatically parsed corpora achieve similar Parseval f-scores, with the grammars induced from the discussion forum material being slightly superior. An error analysis reveals that the two types of grammars do behave differently

Arabic parsing using grammar transforms

We investigate Arabic Context Free Grammar parsing with dependency annotation comparing lexicalised and unlexicalised parsers. We study how morphosyntactic as well as function tag information percolation in the form of grammar transforms (Johnson, 1998, Kulick et al., 2006) affects the performance of a parser and helps dependency assignment. We focus on the three most frequent functional tags in the Arabic Penn Treebank: subjects, direct objects and predicates . We merge these functional tags with their phrasal categories and (where appropriate) percolate case information to the non-terminal (POS) category to train the parsers. We then automatically enrich the output of these parsers with full dependency information in order to annotate trees with Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) f-structure equations with produce f-structures, i.e. attribute-value matrices approximating to basic predicate-argument-adjunct structure representations. We present a series of experiments evaluating how well lexicalized, history-based, generative (Bikel) as well as latent variable PCFG (Berkeley) parsers cope with the enriched Arabic data. We measure quality and coverage of both the output trees and the generated LFG f-structures. We show that joint functional and morphological information percolation improves both the recovery of trees as well as dependency results in the form of LFG f-structures

Parser evaluation across text types

When a statistical parser is trained on one treebank, one usually tests it on another portion of the same treebank, partly due to the fact that a comparable annotation format is needed for testing. But the user of a parser may not be interested in parsing sentences from the same newspaper all over, or even wants syntactic annotations for a slightly different text type. Gildea (2001) for instance found that a parser trained on the WSJ portion of the Penn Treebank performs less well on the Brown corpus (the subset that is available in the PTB bracketing format) than a parser that has been trained only on the Brown corpus, although the latter one has only half as many sentences as the former. Additionally, a parser trained on both the WSJ and Brown corpora performs less well on the Brown corpus than on the WSJ one. This leads us to the following questions that we would like to address in this paper: - Is there a difference in usefulness of techniques that are used to improve parser performance between the same-corpus and the different-corpus case? - Are different types of parsers (rule-based and statistical) equally sensitive to corpus variation? To achieve this, we compared the quality of the parses of a hand-crafted constraint-based parser and a statistical PCFG-based parser that was trained on a treebank of German newspaper text

From news to comment: Resources and benchmarks for parsing the language of web 2.0

We investigate the problem of parsing the noisy language of social media. We evaluate four all-Street-Journal-trained statistical parsers (Berkeley, Brown, Malt and MST) on a new dataset containing 1,000 phrase structure trees for sentences from microblogs (tweets) and discussion forum posts. We compare the four parsers on their ability to produce Stanford dependencies for these Web 2.0 sentences. We find that the parsers have a particular problem with tweets and that a substantial part of this problem is related to POS tagging accuracy. We attempt three retraining experiments involving Malt, Brown and an in-house Berkeley-style parser and obtain a statistically significant improvement for all three parsers