tailieunhanh - Báo cáo khoa học: "Comparison between CFG filtering techniques for LTAG and HPSG"

Various parsing techniques have been developed for lexicalized grammars such as Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) (Schabes et al., 1988), and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (Pollard and Sag, 1994). Along with the independent development of parsing techniques for individual grammar formalisms, some of them have been adapted to other formalisms (Schabes et al., 1988; van Noord, 1994; Yoshida et al., 1999; Torisawa et al., 2000). However, these realizations sometimes exhibit quite different performance in each grammar formalism (Yoshida et al., 1999; Yoshinaga et al., 2001). . | Comparison between CFG filtering techniques for LTAG and HPSG Naoki Yoshinagaf f University of Tokyo 7-3-1 Hongo Bunkyo-ku Tokyo 113-0033 Japan yoshinag@. Kentaro Torisawa Ị Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology 1-1 Asahidai Tatsunokuchi Ishikawa 923-1292 Japan torisawa@ Jun ichi Tsujiif CREST JST Japan Science and Technology Corporation Hon-cho 4-1-8 Kawaguchi-shi Saitama 332-0012 Japan tsujii@ Abstract An empirical comparison of CFG filtering techniques for LTAG and HPSG is presented. We demonstrate that an approximation of HPSG produces a more effective CFG filter than that of LTAG. We also investigate the reason for that difference. 1 Introduction Various parsing techniques have been developed for lexicalized grammars such as Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar LTAG Schabes et al. 1988 and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar HPSG Pollard and Sag 1994 . Along with the independent development of parsing techniques for individual grammar formalisms some of them have been adapted to other formalisms Schabes et al. 1988 van Noord 1994 Yoshida et al. 1999 Torisawa et al. 2000 . However these realizations sometimes exhibit quite different performance in each grammar formalism Yoshida et al. 1999 Yoshinaga et al. 2001 . If we could identify an algorithmic difference that causes performance difference it would reveal advantages and disadvantages of the different realizations. This should also allow us to integrate the advantages of the realizations into one generic parsing technique which yields the further advancement of the whole parsing community. In this paper we compare CFG filtering techniques for LTAG Harbusch 1990 Poller and Becker 1998 and HPSG Torisawa et al. 2000 Kiefer and Krieger 2000 following an approach to parsing comparison among different grammar formalisms Yoshinaga et al. 2001 . The key idea of the approach is to use strongly equivalent grammars which generate equivalent parse results for the .

• Báo cáo khoa học
• Comparison
• CFG filtering techniques
• LTAG and HPSG
• báo cáo khoa học
• mô hình ngôn ngữ
• xử lý ngôn ngữ tự nhiên
• Information Sciences
• Relative deviations in pairwise comparison matrices
• Pairwise comparison matrices
• Relative deviation interconnection
• Pairwise comparison matrix
• Nuclear engineering and technology
• Comparison of proliferation resistance among natural uranium
• Comparison of thoriumeuranium
• Comparison of thoriumeplutonium fuels
• CANada Deuterium Uranium in deep geological repository
• Combining multiattribute utility analysis with transport model
• International Journal of Computer Networks and Communications Security
• The optical communications
• Simulating an optical high debit transmission chain
• Optisystem with comparison of optical windows
• Comparison of optical windows
• BMC Cancer
• Indirect comparison
• Matching adjusted comparison
• Prior sunitinib treated patients
• Metastatic renal cell carcinoma
• Mass media
• Tribal groups based
• Social comparison of tribal groups based
• Social comparison
• Wadi project adoption
• BMC Bioinformatics
• Friedman test
• Exact p value
• Rank sum difference
• Multiple comparison
• Nonparametric statistics
• Classifier comparison
• Machine learning
• Review study on design comparison
• Design comparison
• Solar dryer cum solar cooker
• Solar cooking
• Solar drying
• Agricultural products
• Triticum aestivum
• New insecticides
• Termites on wheat
• Field conditions
• Comparison to yield
• Wheat in comparison
• Two new criteria mathematical knowledge
• comparison in the Bruhat order
• mathematical works
• Even circuits
• prescribed clockwise parity
• scientific reports
• scientific research
• medical research
• therapeutic
• pharmaceutical
• Randomized Comparison
• Radial Artery
• Saphenous Vein
• Coronary Bypass Grafts
• trình bày báo cáo
• tài liệu báo cáo khoa học
• nghiên cứu y học
• báo cáo y học
• kiến thức y học
• A Comparison
• Chinese Parsers
• Stanford Dependencies
• báo cáo ngôn ngữ
• ngôn ngữ tự nhiên
• Loopy Belief Propagation and Dual Decomposition
• Integrated CCG Supertagging and Parsing
• Measuring Language Divergence
• Intra Lexical Comparison
• Simon Kirby T
• Mark Ellison
• Models for Sentence Compression
• A Comparison across Domains
• Training Requirements
• Evaluation Measures
• A Comparison and Semi Quantitative Analysis
• Words and Character Bigrams as Features
• Chinese Text Categorization
• A Comparison of Document
• Sentence
• Term Event Spaces
• A Comparison of Alternative Parse
• Tree Paths
• Labeling Semantic Roles
• Paragraph
• word
• and coherence based approaches to sentence ranking
• A comparison of algorithm
• human performance
• A comparison of three adaptive behaviour measures
• Cognitive level of autism
• Severity level of autism
• Assess adaptive behaviours
• VABS Classroom edition
• On the Evaluation and Comparison of Taggers
• the Effect of Noise
• Testing Corpora
• A Practical Comparison
• Parsing Strategies
• Jonathan Slocum Siemens
• model language
• process natural language
• FACTORING RECURSION
• DEPENDENCIES
• AN ASPECT OF TREE ADJOINING GRAMMARS (TAG) AND A COMPARISON OF SOME FORMAL PROPERTIES OF TAGS
• GPSGS
• PLGS
• AND LPGS