Source PaperYearLineSentence
P10-1111 2010 21
Klenner(2007) uses a system similar to ? but more restricted than ? ours to label syntactic chunks derived from the TiGer Treebank
P10-1111 2010 149
f-score without constraints gold standard 95.94 95.94 95.94 parser output 76.27 75.55 75.91 with constraints gold standard 96.21 96.21 96.21 parser output 76.36 75.64 76.00 Table 4: evalb results for the test set 4.1.1 Subcategorisation Frames Early on in the paper we mention that, unlike e. g. Klenner (2007), we did not include predefined subcategorisation frames into the constraint set, but rather let the joint statistical and ILP models decide on the correct type of arguments assignedto a verb
P10-1111 2010 100
Furthermore, the constraints are treebank specific to a certain degree in that they use a TiGer-specific set of labels and are conditioned on TiGer-specific configurations and categories.8SB = subject, OA = accusative object, OA2 = sec ond accusative object, DA = dative, OG = genitive object,OP = prepositional object, PD = predicate, OC = clausal ob ject, EP = expletive es 9AG = genitive adjunct 1090Unlike Klenner (2007), we do not use prede fined subcategorization frames, instead letting the statistical model choose arguments
E12-1056 2012 7
In parsing, SCFs have beensuccessfully used to improve the output of sta tistical parsers (Klenner (2007), Deoskar (2008), Sigogne et al(2011)) which is particularly significant in high-precision domain-independent parsing