SCHWA: PETE using CCG dependencies with the C&C parser

Authors:
Dominick Ng;James W. D. Constable;Matthew Honnibal;James R. Curran
Affiliations:
University of Sydney, NSW, Australia;University of Sydney, NSW, Australia;University of Sydney, NSW, Australia;University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
Venue:
SemEval '10 Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation
Year:
2010

Citing 10
Cited 0

The syntactic process

The syntactic process
Building a large annotated corpus of English: the penn treebank

Computational Linguistics - Special issue on using large corpora: II
Parsing with generative models of predicate-argument structure

ACL '03 Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - Volume 1
Parsing the WSJ using CCG and log-linear models

ACL '04 Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics
CCGbank: A Corpus of CCG Derivations and Dependency Structures Extracted from the Penn Treebank

Computational Linguistics
Wide-coverage efficient statistical parsing with ccg and log-linear models

Computational Linguistics
Comparing the accuracy of CCG and Penn Treebank parsers

ACLShort '09 Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers
Unbounded dependency recovery for parser evaluation

EMNLP '09 Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Volume 2 - Volume 2
Evaluating a statistical CCG parser on Wikipedia

People's Web '09 Proceedings of the 2009 Workshop on The People's Web Meets NLP: Collaboratively Constructed Semantic Resources
SemEval-2010 task 12: Parser evaluation using textual entailments

SemEval '10 Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper describes the SCHWA system entered by the University of Sydney in SemEval 2010 Task 12 -- Parser Evaluation using Textual Entailments (Yuret et al., 2010). Our system achieved an overall accuracy of 70% in the task evaluation. We used the C&C parser to build CCG dependency parses of the truth and hypothesis sentences. We then used partial match heuristics to determine whether the system should predict entailment. Heuristics were used because the dependencies generated by the parser are construction specific, making full compatibility unlikely. We also manually annotated the development set with CCG analyses, establishing an upper bound for our entailment system of 87%.