Year of publication
- How do treebank annotation schemes influence parsing results? : or how not to compare apples and oranges (2005)
- In the last decade, the Penn treebank has become the standard data set for evaluating parsers. The fact that most parsers are solely evaluated on this specific data set leaves the question unanswered how much these results depend on the annotation scheme of the treebank. In this paper, we will investigate the influence which different decisions in the annotation schemes of treebanks have on parsing. The investigation uses the comparison of similar treebanks of German, NEGRA and TüBa-D/Z, which are subsequently modified to allow a comparison of the differences. The results show that deleted unary nodes and a flat phrase structure have a negative influence on parsing quality while a flat clause structure has a positive influence.
- Annotation compatibility working group report (2006)
- This report explores the question of compatibility between annotation projects including translating annotation formalisms to each other or to common forms. Compatibility issues are crucial for systems that use the results of multiple annotation projects. We hope that this report will begin a concerted effort in the field to track the compatibility of annotation schemes for part of speech tagging, time annotation, treebanking, role labeling and other phenomena.
- Combining dependency parsing with PP attachment (2007)
- Prepositional phrase (PP) attachment is one of the major sources for errors in traditional statistical parsers. The reason for that lies in the type of information necessary for resolving structural ambiguities. For parsing, it is assumed that distributional information of parts-of-speech and phrases is sufficient for disambiguation. For PP attachment, in contrast, lexical information is needed. The problem of PP attachment has sparked much interest ever since Hindle and Rooth (1993) formulated the problem in a way that can be easily handled by machine learning approaches: In their approach, PP attachment is reduced to the decision between noun and verb attachment; and the relevant information is reduced to the two possible attachment sites (the noun and the verb) and the preposition of the PP. Brill and Resnik (1994) extended the feature set to the now standard 4-tupel also containing the noun inside the PP. Among many publications on the problem of PP attachment, Volk (2001; 2002) describes the only system for German. He uses a combination of supervised and unsupervised methods. The supervised method is based on the back-off model by Collins and Brooks (1995), the unsupervised part consists of heuristics such as ”If there is a support verb construction present, choose verb attachment”. Volk trains his back-off model on the Negra treebank (Skut et al., 1998) and extracts frequencies for the heuristics from the ”Computerzeitung”. The latter also serves as test data set. Consequently, it is difficult to compare Volk’s results to other results for German, including the results presented here, since not only he uses a combination of supervised and unsupervised learning, but he also performs domain adaptation. Most of the researchers working on PP attachment seem to be satisfied with a PP attachment system; we have found hardly any work on integrating the results of such approaches into actual parsers. The only exceptions are Mehl et al. (1998) and Foth and Menzel (2006), both working with German data. Mehl et al. report a slight improvement of PP attachment from 475 correct PPs out of 681 PPs for the original parser to 481 PPs. Foth and Menzel report an improvement of overall accuracy from 90.7% to 92.2%. Both integrate statistical attachment preferences into a parser. First, we will investigate whether dependency parsing, which generally uses lexical information, shows the same performance on PP attachment as an independent PP attachment classifier does. Then we will investigate an approach that allows the integration of PP attachment information into the output of a parser without having to modify the parser: The results of an independent PP attachment classifier are integrated into the parse of a dependency parser for German in a postprocessing step.
- Is it really that difficult to parse German? (2006)
- This paper presents a comparative study of probabilistic treebank parsing of German, using the Negra and TüBa-D/Z treebanks. Experiments with the Stanford parser, which uses a factored PCFG and dependency model, show that, contrary to previous claims for other parsers, lexicalization of PCFG models boosts parsing performance for both treebanks. The experiments also show that there is a big difference in parsing performance, when trained on the Negra and on the TüBa-D/Z treebanks. Parser performance for the models trained on TüBa-D/Z are comparable to parsing results for English with the Stanford parser, when trained on the Penn treebank. This comparison at least suggests that German is not harder to parse than its West-Germanic neighbor language English.
- Parsing without grammar - using complete trees instead (2003)
- The definition of similarity between sentences is formulated on the levels of words, POS tags, and chunks (Abney 91; Abney 96). The evaluation of this approach shows that while precision and recall based on the PARSEVAL measures (Black et al. 91) do not reach state of the art Parsers yet (F1=87.19 on syntactic constituents, F1=77.78 including functionargument structure), the parser shows a very reliable performance where function-argument structure is concerned (F1=96.52). The lower F-scores are very often due to unattached constituents.
- Parsing coordinations (2009)
- The present paper is concerned with statistical parsing of constituent structures in German. The paper presents four experiments that aim at improving parsing performance of coordinate structure: 1) reranking the n-best parses of a PCFG parser, 2) enriching the input to a PCFG parser by gold scopes for any conjunct, 3) reranking the parser output for all possible scopes for conjuncts that are permissible with regard to clause structure. Experiment 4 reranks a combination of parses from experiments 1 and 3. The experiments presented show that n- best parsing combined with reranking improves results by a large margin. Providing the parser with different scope possibilities and reranking the resulting parses results in an increase in F-score from 69.76 for the baseline to 74.69. While the F-score is similar to the one of the first experiment (n-best parsing and reranking), the first experiment results in higher recall (75.48% vs. 73.69%) and the third one in higher precision (75.43% vs. 73.26%). Combining the two methods results in the best result with an F-score of 76.69.
- A Testsuite for Testing Parser Performance onComplex German Grammatical Constructions (2009)
- Traditionally, parsers are evaluated against gold standard test data. This can cause problems if there is a mismatch between the data structures and representations used by the parser and the gold standard. A particular case in point is German, for which two treebanks (TiGer and TüBa-D/Z) are available with highly different annotation schemes for the acquisition of (e.g.) PCFG parsers. The differences between the TiGer and TüBa-D/Z annotation schemes make fair and unbiased parser evaluation difficult [7, 9, 12]. The resource (TEPACOC) presented in this paper takes a different approach to parser evaluation: instead of providing evaluation data in a single annotation scheme, TEPACOC uses comparable sentences and their annotations for 5 selected key grammatical phenomena (with 20 sentences each per phenomena) from both TiGer and TüBa-D/Z resources. This provides a 2 times 100 sentence comparable testsuite which allows us to evaluate TiGer-trained parsers against the TiGer part of TEPACOC, and TüBa-D/Z-trained parsers against the TüBa-D/Z part of TEPACOC for key phenomena, instead of comparing them against a single (and potentially biased) gold standard. To overcome the problem of inconsistency in human evaluation and to bridge the gap between the two different annotation schemes, we provide an extensive error classification, which enables us to compare parser output across the two different treebanks. In the remaining part of the paper we present the testsuite and describe the grammatical phenomena covered in the data. We discuss the different annotation strategies used in the two treebanks to encode these phenomena and present our error classification of potential parser errors.
- The PaGe 2008 shared task on parsing German (2008)
- The ACL 2008 Workshop on Parsing German features a shared task on parsing German. The goal of the shared task was to find reasons for the radically different behavior of parsers on the different treebanks and between constituent and dependency representations. In this paper, we describe the task and the data sets. In addition, we provide an overview of the test results and a first analysis.