BibSonomyburst/user/diego_ma/gram_rels evaluationBibSonomy RSS feed for /user/diego_ma/gram_rels evaluation2012-02-17T03:08:55+01:00http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2a9ae1ef031141fe460eaa6deea6036d7/diego_madiego_ma2008-01-29T08:19:28+01:00parsers evaluation AnswerFinder gram_rels molla_publication <span class="authorEditorList"><a href="/author/Mollá">Diego Mollá</a>, and <a href="/author/Hutchinson">Ben Hutchinson</a> </span><em>Proc. European Association for Computational Linguistics EACL, workshop on Evaluation Initiatives in Natural Language Processing, </em><em>page 43-50. </em><em>Budapest, </em><em>Association for Computational Linguistics, </em><em>ACL, </em>(<em>April 2003</em>)Tue Jan 29 08:19:28 CET 2008BudapestProc. European Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), workshop on Evaluation Initiatives in Natural Language ProcessingApril43-50Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Evaluations of Parsing Systems2003parsers evaluation AnswerFinder gram_rels molla_publication A wide range of parser and/or grammar evaluation methods have been reported in the literature. However, in most cases these evaluations take the parsers independently (intrinsic evaluations), and only in a few cases has the effect of different parsers in real applications been measured (extrinsic evaluations). This paper compares two evaluations of the Link Grammar parser and the Conexor Functional Dependency Grammar parser. The parsing systems, despite both being dependency-based, return different types of dependencies, making a direct comparison impossible. In the intrinsic evaluation, the accuracy of the parsers is compared independently by converting the dependencies into grammatical relations and using the methodology of \newcite{Carroll:1998} for parser comparison. In the extrinsic evaluation, the parsers' impact in a practical application is compared within the context of answer extraction. The differences in the results are significant.http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2ddf167520fb423a651e0c5dcb062f1f2/diego_madiego_ma2008-01-29T08:16:55+01:00AnswerFinder parsers evaluation gram_rels molla_publication <span class="authorEditorList"><a href="/author/Mollá">Diego Mollá</a>, and <a href="/author/Hutchinson">Ben Hutchinson</a> </span>(<em>2002</em>)<em>In preparation . </em>Tue Jan 29 08:16:55 CET 2008In preparationIn Vitro and In Vivo Evaluations of Parsing Systems Within the Context of Answer Extraction2002AnswerFinder parsers evaluation gram_rels molla_publication A wide variety of parser and/or grammar evaluation methods have been reported in the literature. However, in most cases these evaluations take the parsers independently (\emph{in vitro} evaluations), and only in a few cases has the effect of different parsers in real applications been measured (\emph{in vivo} evaluations). This paper compares two evaluations of the Link Grammar parser and the Conexor Functional Dependency Grammar parser. The parsing systems, despite both being dependency-based, return different types of dependencies, making a direct comparison impossible. In the first evaluation, the accuracy of the parsers is compared \emph{in vitro} by converting the dependencies into grammatical relations and using the methodology of \newcite{Carroll:1998} for parser comparison. In the second evaluation, the parsers' impact in a practical application is compared \emph{in vivo} within the context of answer extraction. The differences in the results are significant and raise questions on the usefulness of purely \emph{in vitro} evaluations.http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/280701520a4cf08fce650cb67143bbf34/diego_madiego_ma2007-12-14T02:37:14+01:00parsers evaluation gram_rels <span class="authorEditorList"><a href="/author/Carroll">John Carroll</a>, <a href="/author/Briscoe">Ted Briscoe</a>, and <a href="/author/Sanfilippo">Antonio Sanfilippo</a> </span><em>Proc. LREC98, </em>(<em>1998</em>)Fri Dec 14 02:37:14 CET 2007Proc. LREC98Parser Evaluation: a Survey and a New Proposal1998parsers evaluation gram_rels We present a critical overview of the state-of-the-art in parser evaluation methodologies and metrics. A discussion of their relative strengths and weaknesses motivates a new --- and we claim more informative and generally applicable --- technique of measuring parser accuracy, based on the use of grammatical relations. We conclude with some preliminary results of experiments in which we use this new scheme to evaluate a robust parser of English.