| 1 |
Automatic acquisition of LFG resources for German - as good as it gets
|
|
|
|
In: Rehbein, Ines and van Genabith, Josef orcid:0000-0003-1322-7944 (2009) Automatic acquisition of LFG resources for German - as good as it gets. In: Lexical Functional Grammar 2009, 13-16 July 2009, Cambridge, UK. (2009)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 2 |
TePaCoC - a testsuite for testing parser performance on complex German grammatical constructions
|
|
|
|
In: Kübler, Sandra and Rehbein, Ines (2009) TePaCoC - a testsuite for testing parser performance on complex German grammatical constructions. In: TLT 7 - 7th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, 23-24 January 2009, Groningen, The Netherlands. (2009)
|
|
Abstract:
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.
|
|
Keyword:
Machine translating; parsing
|
|
URL: http://doras.dcu.ie/15179/
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 3 |
Treebank annotation schemes and parser evaluation for German
|
|
|
|
In: Rehbein, Ines and van Genabith, Josef (2007) Treebank annotation schemes and parser evaluation for German. In: EMNLP-CoNLL 2007 - Joint Meeting of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, 28-30 June 2007, Prague, Czech Republic. (2007)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 4 |
Evaluating evaluation measures
|
|
|
|
In: Rehbein, Ines and van Genabith, Josef (2007) Evaluating evaluation measures. In: NODALIDA 2007 - 16th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistic, 25-26 May 2007, Tartu, Estonia. (2007)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 5 |
Why is it so difficult to compare treebanks? TIGER and TüBa-D/Z revisited
|
|
|
|
In: Rehbein, Ines and van Genabith, Josef (2007) Why is it so difficult to compare treebanks? TIGER and TüBa-D/Z revisited. In: TLT 2007 - The 6th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, 7-8 December, 2007, Bergen, Norway. (2007)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 6 |
German particle verbs and pleonastic prepositions
|
|
|
|
In: Rehbein, Ines and van Genabith, Josef (2006) German particle verbs and pleonastic prepositions. In: Third ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on Prepositions, 3 April 2006, Trento, Italy. (2006)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
