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)

Evaluation of an automatic f-structure annotation algorithm against the PARC 700 dependency bank

An automatic method for annotating the Penn-II Treebank (Marcus et al., 1994) with high-level Lexical Functional Grammar (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982; Bresnan, 2001; Dalrymple, 2001) f-structure representations is described in (Cahill et al., 2002; Cahill et al., 2004a; Cahill et al., 2004b; O’Donovan et al., 2004). The annotation algorithm and the automatically-generated f-structures are the basis for the automatic acquisition of wide-coverage and robust probabilistic approximations of LFG grammars (Cahill et al., 2002; Cahill et al., 2004a) and for the induction of LFG semantic forms (O’Donovan et al., 2004). The quality of the annotation algorithm and the f-structures it generates is, therefore, extremely important. To date, annotation quality has been measured in terms of precision and recall against the DCU 105. The annotation algorithm currently achieves an f-score of 96.57% for complete f-structures and 94.3% for preds-only f-structures. There are a number of problems with evaluating against a gold standard of this size, most notably that of overfitting. There is a risk of assuming that the gold standard is a complete and balanced representation of the linguistic phenomena in a language and basing design decisions on this. It is, therefore, preferable to evaluate against a more extensive, external standard. Although the DCU 105 is publicly available, 1 a larger well-established external standard can provide a more widely-recognised benchmark against which the quality of the f-structure annotation algorithm can be evaluated. For these reasons, we present an evaluation of the f-structure annotation algorithm of (Cahill et al., 2002; Cahill et al., 2004a; Cahill et al., 2004b; O’Donovan et al., 2004) against the PARC 700 Dependency Bank (King et al., 2003). Evaluation against an external gold standard is a non-trivial task as linguistic analyses may differ systematically between the gold standard and the output to be evaluated as regards feature geometry and nomenclature. We present conversion software to automatically account for many (but not all) of the systematic differences. Currently, we achieve an f-score of 87.31% for the f-structures generated from the original Penn-II trees and an f-score of 81.79% for f-structures from parse trees produced by Charniak’s (2000) parser in our pipeline parsing architecture against the PARC 700

Evaluating automatically acquired f-structures against PropBank

An automatic method for annotating the Penn-II Treebank (Marcus et al., 1994) with high-level Lexical Functional Grammar (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982; Bresnan, 2001; Dalrymple, 2001) f-structure representations is presented by Burke et al. (2004b). The annotation algorithm is the basis for the automatic acquisition of wide-coverage and robust probabilistic approximations of LFG grammars (Cahill et al., 2004) and for the induction of subcategorisation frames (O’Donovan et al., 2004; O’Donovan et al., 2005). Annotation quality is, therefore, extremely important and to date has been measured against the DCU 105 and the PARC 700 Dependency Bank (King et al., 2003). The annotation algorithm achieves f-scores of 96.73% for complete f-structures and 94.28% for preds-only f-structures against the DCU 105 and 87.07% against the PARC 700 using the feature set of Kaplan et al. (2004). Burke et al. (2004a) provides detailed analysis of these results. This paper presents an evaluation of the annotation algorithm against PropBank (Kingsbury and Palmer, 2002). PropBank identifies the semantic arguments of each predicate in the Penn-II treebank and annotates their semantic roles. As PropBank was developed independently of any grammar formalism it provides a platform for making more meaningful comparisons between parsing technologies than was previously possible. PropBank also allows a much larger scale evaluation than the smaller DCU 105 and PARC 700 gold standards. In order to perform the evaluation, first, we automatically converted the PropBank annotations into a dependency format. Second, we developed conversion software to produce PropBank-style semantic annotations in dependency format from the f-structures automatically acquired by the annotation algorithm from Penn-II. The evaluation was performed using the evaluation software of Crouch et al. (2002) and Riezler et al. (2002). Using the Penn-II Wall Street Journal Section 24 as the development set, currently we achieve an f-score of 76.58% against PropBank for the Section 23 test set

DCU 250 Arabic dependency bank: an LFG gold standard resource for the Arabic Penn treebank

This paper describes the construction of a dependency bank gold standard for Arabic, DCU 250 Arabic Dependency Bank (DCU 250), based on the Arabic Penn Treebank Corpus (ATB) (Bies and Maamouri, 2003; Maamouri and Bies, 2004) within the theoretical framework of Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG). For parsing and automatically extracting grammatical and lexical resources from treebanks, it is necessary to evaluate against established gold standard resources. Gold standards for various languages have been developed, but to our knowledge, such a resource has not yet been constructed for Arabic. The construction of the DCU 250 marks the first step towards the creation of an automatic LFG f-structure annotation algorithm for the ATB, and for the extraction of Arabic grammatical and lexical resources

Treebank-based multilingual unification-grammar development

Broad-coverage, deep unification grammar development is time-consuming and costly. This problem can be exacerbated in multilingual grammar development scenarios. Recently (Cahill et al., 2002) presented a treebank-based methodology to semi-automatically create broadcoverage, deep, unification grammar resources for English. In this paper we present a project which adapts this model to a multilingual grammar development scenario to obtain robust, wide-coverage, probabilistic Lexical-Functional Grammars (LFGs) for English and German via automatic f-structure annotation algorithms based on the Penn-II and TIGER treebanks. We outline our method used to extract a probabilistic LFG from the TIGER treebank and report on the quality of the f-structures produced. We achieve an f-score of 66.23 on the evaluation of 100 random sentences against a manually constructed gold standard

Using very large corpora to detect raising and control verbs

The distinction between raising and subject-control verbs, although crucial for the construction of semantics, is not easy to make given access to only the local syntactic configuration of the sentence. In most contexts raising verbs and control verbs display identical superficial syntactic structure. Linguists apply grammaticality tests to distinguish these verb classes. Our idea is to learn to predict the raising-control distinction by simulating such grammaticality judgments by means of pattern searches. Experiments with regression tree models show that using pattern counts from large unannotated corpora can be used to assess how likely a verb form is to appear in raising vs. control constructions. For this task it is beneficial to use the much larger but also noisier Web corpus rather than the smaller and cleaner Gigaword corpus. A similar methodology can be useful for detecting other lexical semantic distinctions: it could be used whenever a test employed to make linguistically interesting distinctions can be reduced to a pattern search in an unannotated corpus

Parsing with automatically acquired, wide-coverage, robust, probabilistic LFG approximations

Traditionally, rich, constraint-based grammatical resources have been hand-coded. Scaling such resources beyond toy fragments to unrestricted, real text is knowledge-intensive, timeconsuming and expensive. The work reported in this thesis is part of a larger project to automate as much as possible the construction of wide-coverage, deep, constraint-based grammatical resources from treebanks. The Penn-II treebank is a large collection of parse-annotated newspaper text. We have designed a Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) (Kaplan and Bresnan, 1982) f-structure annotation algorithm to automatically annotate this treebank with f-structure information approximating to basic predicate-argument or dependency structures (Cahill et al., 2002c, 2004a). We then use the f-structure-annotated treebank resource to automatically extract grammars and lexical resources for parsing new text into f-structures. We have designed and implemented the Treebank Tool Suite (TTS) to support the linguistic work that seeds the automatic f-structure annotation algorithm (Cahill and van Genabith, 2002) and the F-Structure Annotation Tool (FSAT) to validate and visualise the results of automatic f-structure annotation. We have designed and implemented two PCFG-based probabilistic parsing architectures for parsing unseen text into f-structures: the pipeline and the integrated model. Both architectures parse raw text into basic, but possibly incomplete, predicate-argument structures (“proto f-structures”) with long distance dependencies (LDDs) unresolved (Cahill et al., 2002c). We have designed and implemented a method for automatically resolving LDDs at f-structure level based on a finite approximation of functional uncertainty equations (Kaplan and Zaenen, 1989) automatically acquired from the f structure-annotated treebank resource (Cahill et al., 2004b). To date, the best result achieved by our own Penn-II induced grammars is a dependency f-score of 80.33% against the PARC 700, an improvement of 0.73% over the best handcrafted grammar of (Kaplan et al., 2004). The processing architecture developed in this thesis is highly flexible: using external, state-of-the-art parsing technologies (Charniak, 2000) in our pipeline model, we achieve a dependency f-score of 81.79% against the PARC 700, an improvement of 2.19% over the results reported in Kaplan et al. (2004). We have also ported our grammar induction methodology to German and the TIGER treebank resource (Cahill et al., 2003a). We have developed a method for treebank-based, wide-coverage, deep, constraintbased grammar acquisition. The resulting PCFG-based LFG approximations parse the Penn-II treebank with wider coverage (measured in terms of complete spanning parse) and parsing results comparable to or better than those achieved by the best hand-crafted grammars, with, we believe, considerably less grammar development effort. We believe that our approach successfully addresses the knowledge-acquisition bottleneck (familiar from rule-based approaches to Al and NLP) in wide-coverage, constraint-based grammar development. Our approach can provide an attractive, wide-coverage, multilingual, deep, constraint-based grammar acquisition paradigm