Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Preprint (25) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (25)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (25)
Keywords
- Deutsch (5)
- Satzanalyse (3)
- Acquisition (1)
- Arabisch (1)
- Automatische Sprachanalyse (1)
- Englisch (1)
- Fehlererkennung (1)
- Fehlertoleranz (1)
- German (1)
- Ilmenau <2000> (1)
Institute
- Extern (25) (remove)
In recent years, research in parsing has extended in several new directions. One of these directions is concerned with parsing languages other than English. Treebanks have become available for many European languages, but also for Arabic, Chinese, or Japanese. However, it was shown that parsing results on these treebanks depend on the types of treebank annotations used. Another direction in parsing research is the development of dependency parsers. Dependency parsing profits from the non-hierarchical nature of dependency relations, thus lexical information can be included in the parsing process in a much more natural way. Especially machine learning based approaches are very successful (cf. e.g.). The results achieved by these dependency parsers are very competitive although comparisons are difficult because of the differences in annotation. For English, the Penn Treebank has been converted to dependencies. For this version, Nivre et al. report an accuracy rate of 86.3%, as compared to an F-score of 92.1 for Charniaks parser. The Penn Chinese Treebank is also available in a constituent and a dependency representations. The best results reported for parsing experiments with this treebank give an F-score of 81.8 for the constituent version and 79.8% accuracy for the dependency version. The general trend in comparisons between constituent and dependency parsers is that the dependency parser performs slightly worse than the constituent parser. The only exception occurs for German, where F-scores for constituent plus grammatical function parses range between 51.4 and 75.3, depending on the treebank, NEGRA or TüBa-D/Z. The dependency parser based on a converted version of Tüba-D/Z, in contrast, reached an accuracy of 83.4%, i.e. 12 percent points better than the best constituent analysis including grammatical functions.
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.
Quantitative evaluation of parsers has traditionally centered around the PARSEVAL measures of crossing brackets, (labeled) precision, and (labeled) recall. However, it is well known that these measures do not give an accurate picture of the quality of the parsers output. Furthermore, we will show that they are especially unsuited for partial parsers. In recent years, research has concentrated on dependencybased evaluation measures. We will show in this paper that such a dependency-based evaluation scheme is particularly suitable for partial parsers. TüBa-D, the treebank used here for evaluation, contains all the necessary dependency information so that the conversion of trees into a dependency structure does not have to rely on heuristics. Therefore, the dependency representations are not only reliable, they are also linguistically motivated and can be used for linguistic purposes.
In this paper, we investigate the role of sub-optimality in training data for part-of-speech tagging. In particular, we examine to what extent the size of the training corpus and certain types of errors in it affect the performance of the tagger. We distinguish four types of errors: If a word is assigned a wrong tag, this tag can belong to the ambiguity class of the word (i.e. to the set of possible tags for that word) or not; furthermore, the major syntactic category (e.g. "N" or "V") can be correctly assigned (e.g. if a finite verb is classified as an infinitive) or not (e.g. if a verb is classified as a noun). We empirically explore the decrease of performance that each of these error types causes for different sizes of the training set. Our results show that those types of errors that are easier to eliminate have a particularly negative effect on the performance. Thus, it is worthwhile concentrating on the elimination of these types of errors, especially if the training corpus is large.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the TüBa-D/Z treebank of written German and to compare it to the independently developed TIGER treebank (Brants et al., 2002). Both treebanks, TIGER and TüBa-D/Z, use an annotation framework that is based on phrase structure grammar and that is enhanced by a level of predicate-argument structure. The comparison between the annotation schemes of the two treebanks focuses on the different treatments of free word order and discontinuous constituents in German as well as on differences in phrase-internal annotation.