On different approaches to syntactic analysis into bi-lexical dependencies: An empirical comparison of direct, PCFG-based, and HPSG-based parsers
We compare three different approaches to parsing into syntactic, bi- lexical dependencies for English: a ‘direct’ data-driven dependency parser, a statistical phrase structure parser, and a hybrid, ‘deep’ grammar-driven parser. The analyses from the latter two are post- converted to bi-lexical depen...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences
2016-04-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Language Modelling |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/101 |
| _version_ | 1818948482996633600 |
|---|---|
| author | Angelina Ivanova Stephan Oepen Rebecca Dridan Dan Flickinger Lilja Øvrelid Emanuele Lapponi |
| author_facet | Angelina Ivanova Stephan Oepen Rebecca Dridan Dan Flickinger Lilja Øvrelid Emanuele Lapponi |
| author_sort | Angelina Ivanova |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | We compare three different approaches to parsing into syntactic, bi- lexical dependencies for English: a ‘direct’ data-driven dependency parser, a statistical phrase structure parser, and a hybrid, ‘deep’ grammar-driven parser. The analyses from the latter two are post- converted to bi-lexical dependencies. Through this ‘reduction’ of all three approaches to syntactic dependency parsers, we determine empirically what performance can be obtained for a common set of de- pendency types for English, across a broad variety of domains. In doing so, we observe what trade-offs apply along three dimensions, accuracy, efficiency, and resilience to domain variation. Our results suggest that the hand-built grammar in one of our parsers helps in both accuracy and cross-domain parsing performance, but these accuracy gains do not necessarily translate to improvements in the downstream task of negation resolution. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T08:47:31Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0df2c5afa1a04faba8f5434681121b52 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2299-856X 2299-8470 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T08:47:31Z |
| publishDate | 2016-04-01 |
| publisher | Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Language Modelling |
| spelling | doaj.art-0df2c5afa1a04faba8f5434681121b522022-12-21T19:46:13ZengInstitute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of SciencesJournal of Language Modelling2299-856X2299-84702016-04-014110.15398/jlm.v4i1.10152On different approaches to syntactic analysis into bi-lexical dependencies: An empirical comparison of direct, PCFG-based, and HPSG-based parsersAngelina Ivanova0Stephan Oepen1Rebecca Dridan2Dan Flickinger3Lilja Øvrelid4Emanuele Lapponi5University of OsloUniversity of Oslo Potsdam UniversityUniversity of OsloStanford UniversityUniversity of OsloUniversity of OsloWe compare three different approaches to parsing into syntactic, bi- lexical dependencies for English: a ‘direct’ data-driven dependency parser, a statistical phrase structure parser, and a hybrid, ‘deep’ grammar-driven parser. The analyses from the latter two are post- converted to bi-lexical dependencies. Through this ‘reduction’ of all three approaches to syntactic dependency parsers, we determine empirically what performance can be obtained for a common set of de- pendency types for English, across a broad variety of domains. In doing so, we observe what trade-offs apply along three dimensions, accuracy, efficiency, and resilience to domain variation. Our results suggest that the hand-built grammar in one of our parsers helps in both accuracy and cross-domain parsing performance, but these accuracy gains do not necessarily translate to improvements in the downstream task of negation resolution.https://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/101Syntactic Dependency ParsingDomain Variation |
| spellingShingle | Angelina Ivanova Stephan Oepen Rebecca Dridan Dan Flickinger Lilja Øvrelid Emanuele Lapponi On different approaches to syntactic analysis into bi-lexical dependencies: An empirical comparison of direct, PCFG-based, and HPSG-based parsers Journal of Language Modelling Syntactic Dependency Parsing Domain Variation |
| title | On different approaches to syntactic analysis into bi-lexical dependencies: An empirical comparison of direct, PCFG-based, and HPSG-based parsers |
| title_full | On different approaches to syntactic analysis into bi-lexical dependencies: An empirical comparison of direct, PCFG-based, and HPSG-based parsers |
| title_fullStr | On different approaches to syntactic analysis into bi-lexical dependencies: An empirical comparison of direct, PCFG-based, and HPSG-based parsers |
| title_full_unstemmed | On different approaches to syntactic analysis into bi-lexical dependencies: An empirical comparison of direct, PCFG-based, and HPSG-based parsers |
| title_short | On different approaches to syntactic analysis into bi-lexical dependencies: An empirical comparison of direct, PCFG-based, and HPSG-based parsers |
| title_sort | on different approaches to syntactic analysis into bi lexical dependencies an empirical comparison of direct pcfg based and hpsg based parsers |
| topic | Syntactic Dependency Parsing Domain Variation |
| url | https://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/101 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT angelinaivanova ondifferentapproachestosyntacticanalysisintobilexicaldependenciesanempiricalcomparisonofdirectpcfgbasedandhpsgbasedparsers AT stephanoepen ondifferentapproachestosyntacticanalysisintobilexicaldependenciesanempiricalcomparisonofdirectpcfgbasedandhpsgbasedparsers AT rebeccadridan ondifferentapproachestosyntacticanalysisintobilexicaldependenciesanempiricalcomparisonofdirectpcfgbasedandhpsgbasedparsers AT danflickinger ondifferentapproachestosyntacticanalysisintobilexicaldependenciesanempiricalcomparisonofdirectpcfgbasedandhpsgbasedparsers AT liljaøvrelid ondifferentapproachestosyntacticanalysisintobilexicaldependenciesanempiricalcomparisonofdirectpcfgbasedandhpsgbasedparsers AT emanuelelapponi ondifferentapproachestosyntacticanalysisintobilexicaldependenciesanempiricalcomparisonofdirectpcfgbasedandhpsgbasedparsers |