3 search hits
-
A unified representation for morphological, syntactic, semantic, and referential annotations
(2004)
-
Erhard W. Hinrichs
Sandra Kübler
Karin Naumann
- This paper reports on the SYN-RA (SYNtax-based Reference Annotation) project, an on-going project of annotating German newspaper texts with referential relations. The project has developed an inventory of anaphoric and coreference relations for German in the context of a unified, XML-based annotation scheme for combining morphological, syntactic, semantic, and anaphoric information. The paper discusses how this unified annotation scheme relates to other formats currently discussed in the literature, in particular the annotation graph model of Bird and Liberman (2001) and the pie-in-thesky scheme for semantic annotation.
-
The PaGe 2008 shared task on parsing German
(2008)
-
Sandra Kübler
- 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.
-
Parsing coordinations
(2009)
-
Sandra Kübler
Erhard Hinrichs
Wolfgang Maier
Eva Klett
- 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.
