Abstract

A key question facing the parsing community is how to compare parsers which use different grammar formalisms and produce different output. Evaluating a parser on the same resource used to create it can lead to non-comparable accuracy scores and an over-optimistic view of parser performance. In this paper we evaluate a CCG parser on DepBank, and demonstrate the difficulties in converting the parser output into Dep-Bank grammatical relations. In addition we present a method for measuring the effectiveness of the conversion, which provides an upper bound on parsing accuracy. The CCG parser obtains an F-score of 81.9% on labelled dependencies, against an upper bound of 84.8%. We compare the CCG parser against the RASP parser, outperforming RASP by over 5 % overall and on the majority of dependency types. 1

Citations