The Importance of Supertagging for Wide-Coverage CCG Parsing

What it is about

The paper shows how a supertagger, which gives each word only a few CCG categories, speeds up a wide-coverage log-linear CCG parser. The supertagger is tightly integrated with the grammar and the parser, so the parser asks for more categories only when it fails to find an analysis. A threshold beta controls how many categories the first pass keeps. Two normal-form constraints on derivations cut memory needs by 48%. Depending on the strategy, parse times fall by 72% to 90%. A setting with 94% coverage parses almost 50 sentences a second. The paper's companion model reaches 84.6 F-score on labelled dependencies.

Ideas

• I1. en/src/ptag.rs: add a probability threshold on the tagger's output with a ladder of settings, loose first and tighter on failure. Report LAS, coverage and seconds on EWT test in en parse-eval, using the paper's ladder as the template.
• I2. Derivation filter: a rule that bans arc patterns the treebank never uses, applied as a transition filter in en/src/parse.rs. Count how many transitions it removes and measure LAS and speed on EWT test.
• I3. Coverage-speed table: report the trade-off between the share of parsed sentences and sentences per second, as the paper's 94% row does, for EWT test.

For Mova

The chapters are 20. Syntax: the Universal Dependencies frame and 21-clause-structure.md; the code is en/src/ptag.rs and en/src/parse.rs. The paper's numbers are for CCG and are not comparable with LAS. Its data are WSJ-derived and outside our licence list, so test on EWT only, with two identical runs before any claim.

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.3115/1220355.1220396

@inproceedings{clark2004importance,
  title = {{The Importance of Supertagging for Wide-Coverage CCG Parsing}},
  author = {Clark, Stephen and Curran, James R.},
  booktitle = {COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics},
  year = {2004},
  doi = {10.3115/1220355.1220396},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3115/1220355.1220396}
}

References

18 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Srinivas Bangalore and Aravind Joshi. 1999. Supertagging: An approach to almost parsing. Computational Linguistics, 25(2):237–265. find
2. John Chen and K. Vijay-Shanker. 2000. Automated extraction of TAGS from the Penn Treebank. In Proceedings of IWPT 2000, Trento, Italy. find
3. John Chen, Srinivas Bangalore, and K. Vijay-Shanker. 1999. New models for improving supertag disambiguation. In Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of EACL, Bergen, Norway. find
4. John Chen, Srinivas Bangalore, Michael Collins, and Owen Rambow. 2002. Reranking an N-gram supertagger. In Proceedings of the TAG+ Workshop, pages 259–268, Venice, Italy. find
5. Stephen Clark and James R. Curran. 2003. Log-linear models for wide-coverage CCG parsing. In Proceedings of the EMNLP Conference, pages 97–104, Sapporo, Japan. find
6. Stephen Clark and James R. Curran. 2004. Parsing the WSJ using CCG and log-linear models. In Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the ACL, Barcelona, Spain. find
7. Stephen Clark, Julia Hockenmaier, and Mark Steedman. 2002. Building deep dependency structures with a wide-coverage CCG parser. In Proceedings of the 40th Meeting of the ACL, pages 327–334, Philadelphia, PA. find
8. Stephen Clark. 2002. A supertagger for Combinatory Categorial Grammar. In Proceedings of the TAG+ Workshop, pages 19–24, Venice, Italy. find
9. Michael Collins. 1999. Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. find
10. James R. Curran and Stephen Clark. 2003. Investigating GIS and smoothing for maximum entropy taggers. In Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the EACL, pages 91–98, Budapest, Hungary. find
11. Jason Eisner. 1996. Efficient normal-form parsing for Combinatory Categorial Grammar. In Proceedings of the 34th Meeting of the ACL, pages 79–86, Santa Cruz, CA. find
12. Julia Hockenmaier and Mark Steedman. 2002. Acquiring compact lexicalized grammars from a cleaner treebank. In Proceedings of the Third LREC Conference, pages 1974–1981, Las Palmas, Spain. find
13. Julia Hockenmaier. 2003. Data and Models for Statistical Parsing with Combinatory Categorial Grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. find
14. Ronald M. Kaplan, Stefan Riezler, Tracy H. King, John T. Maxwell III, Alexander Vasserman, and Richard Crouch. 2004. Speed and accuracy in shallow and deep stochastic parsing. In Proceedings of the HLT/NAACL Conference, Boston, MA. find
15. Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J. Wright. 1999. Numerical Optimization. Springer, New York, USA. find
16. Miles Osborne. 2000. Estimation of stochastic attribute-value grammars using an informative sample. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 586–592, Saarbrücken, Germany. find
17. Anoop Sarkar, Fei Xia, and Aravind Joshi. 2000. Some experiments on indicators of parsing complexity for lexicalized grammars. In Proceedings of the COLING Workshop on Efficiency in Large-Scale Parsing Systems, pages 37–42, Luxembourg. find
18. Mark Steedman. 2000. The Syntactic Process. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. find

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/aclbulk-2004-clark-importance-supertagging-wide-coverage-ccg/