The CoNLL 2007 shared task on dependency parsing

The Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning features a shared task, in which participants train and test their learning systems on the same data sets. In 2007, as in 2006, the shared task has been devoted to dependency parsing, this year with both a multilingual track and a domain adaptation track. In this paper, we define the tasks of the different tracks and describe how the data sets were created from existing treebanks for ten languages. In addition, we characterize the different approaches of the participating systems, report the test results, and provide a first analysis of these results

D6.2 Integrated Final Version of the Components for Lexical Acquisition

The PANACEA project has addressed one of the most critical bottlenecks that threaten the development of technologies to support multilingualism in Europe, and to process the huge quantity of multilingual data produced annually. Any attempt at automated language processing, particularly Machine Translation (MT), depends on the availability of language-specific resources. Such Language Resources (LR) contain information about the language\u27s lexicon, i.e. the words of the language and the characteristics of their use. In Natural Language Processing (NLP), LRs contribute information about the syntactic and semantic behaviour of words - i.e. their grammar and their meaning - which inform downstream applications such as MT. To date, many LRs have been generated by hand, requiring significant manual labour from linguistic experts. However, proceeding manually, it is impossible to supply LRs for every possible pair of European languages, textual domain, and genre, which are needed by MT developers. Moreover, an LR for a given language can never be considered complete nor final because of the characteristics of natural language, which continually undergoes changes, especially spurred on by the emergence of new knowledge domains and new technologies. PANACEA has addressed this challenge by building a factory of LRs that progressively automates the stages involved in the acquisition, production, updating and maintenance of LRs required by MT systems. The existence of such a factory will significantly cut down the cost, time and human effort required to build LRs. WP6 has addressed the lexical acquisition component of the LR factory, that is, the techniques for automated extraction of key lexical information from texts, and the automatic collation of lexical information into LRs in a standardized format. The goal of WP6 has been to take existing techniques capable of acquiring syntactic and semantic information from corpus data, improving upon them, adapting and applying them to multiple languages, and turning them into powerful and flexible techniques capable of supporting massive applications. One focus for improving the scalability and portability of lexical acquisition techniques has been to extend exiting techniques with more powerful, less "supervised" methods. In NLP, the amount of supervision refers to the amount of manual annotation which must be applied to a text corpus before machine learning or other techniques are applied to the data to compile a lexicon. More manual annotation means more accurate training data, and thus a more accurate LR. However, given that it is impractical from a cost and time perspective to manually annotate the vast amounts of data required for multilingual MT across domains, it is important to develop techniques which can learn from corpora with less supervision. Less supervised methods are capable of supporting both large-scale acquisition and efficient domain adaptation, even in the domains where data is scarce. Another focus of lexical acquisition in PANACEA has been the need of LR users to tune the accuracy level of LRs. Some applications may require increased precision, or accuracy, where the application requires a high degree of confidence in the lexical information used. At other times a greater level of coverage may be required, with information about more words at the expense of some degree of accuracy. Lexical acquisition in PANACEA has investigated confidence thresholds for lexical acquisition to ensure that the ultimate users of LRs can generate lexical data from the PANACEA factory at the desired level of accuracy

On the Effectiveness of Log Representation for Log-based Anomaly Detection

Logs are an essential source of information for people to understand the running status of a software system. Due to the evolving modern software architecture and maintenance methods, more research efforts have been devoted to automated log analysis. In particular, machine learning (ML) has been widely used in log analysis tasks. In ML-based log analysis tasks, converting textual log data into numerical feature vectors is a critical and indispensable step. However, the impact of using different log representation techniques on the performance of the downstream models is not clear, which limits researchers and practitioners' opportunities of choosing the optimal log representation techniques in their automated log analysis workflows. Therefore, this work investigates and compares the commonly adopted log representation techniques from previous log analysis research. Particularly, we select six log representation techniques and evaluate them with seven ML models and four public log datasets (i.e., HDFS, BGL, Spirit and Thunderbird) in the context of log-based anomaly detection. We also examine the impacts of the log parsing process and the different feature aggregation approaches when they are employed with log representation techniques. From the experiments, we provide some heuristic guidelines for future researchers and developers to follow when designing an automated log analysis workflow. We believe our comprehensive comparison of log representation techniques can help researchers and practitioners better understand the characteristics of different log representation techniques and provide them with guidance for selecting the most suitable ones for their ML-based log analysis workflow.Comment: Accepted by Journal of Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE