Linear complexity context-free parsing pipelines via chart constraints

NAACL HLT 2009 - Human Language Technologies: The 2009 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 647-655

  Roark, Brian ^a   Hollingshead, Kristy ^a  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; PIPELINES;

ALTERNATE METHOD; BOUNDING METHOD; HARD CONSTRAINTS; HIGH-PRECISION; LINEAR COMPLEXITY; PRE-PROCESSING; QUADRATIC COMPLEXITY; WORST-CASE COMPLEXITY;

PIPELINE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

EID: 84858416194     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.3115/1620754.1620849     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. D. Blaheta and E. Charniak. 1999. Automatic compensation for parser figure-of-merit flaws. In Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 513-518.
2. E. Charniak. 2000. A maximum-entropy-inspired parser. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 132-139.
3. J. Cocke and J.T. Schwartz. 1970. Programming languages and their compilers: Preliminary notes. Technical report, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, NYU.
4. B. Djordjevic, J.R. Curran, and S. Clark. 2007. Improving the efficiency of a wide-coverage CCG parser. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT), pages 39-47.
5. E. Glaysher and D. Moldovan. 2006. Speeding up full syntactic parsing by leveraging partial parsing decisions. In Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006 Main Conference Poster Sessions, pages 295-300.
6. K. Hall and M. Johnson. 2004. Attention shifting for parsing speech. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 40-46.
7. K. Hollingshead and B. Roark. 2007. Pipeline iteration. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 952-959.
8. K. Hollingshead, S. Fisher, and B. Roark. 2005. Comparing and combining finite-state and context-free parsers. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference and the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP), pages 787-794.
9. T. Kasami. 1965. An efficient recognition and syntax analysis algorithm for context-free languages. Technical report, AFCRL-65-758, Air Force Cambridge Research Lab., Bedford, MA.
10. M.P. Marcus, B. Santorini, and M.A. Marcinkiewicz. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313-330.
11. A. Ratnaparkhi. 1999. Learning to parse natural language with maximum entropy models. Machine Learning, 34(1-3):151-175.
12. B. Roark and K. Hollingshead. 2008. Classifying chart cells for quadratic complexity context-free inference. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 745-752.
13. N. Xue, F. Xia, F. Chiou, and M. Palmer. 2004. The Penn Chinese treebank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus. Natural Language Engineering, 10(4):1-30.
14. 3. Information and Control, 10(2):189-208.