MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129388736 · doi:10.1515/pralin-2015-0008

A Python-based Interface for Wide Coverage Lexicalized Tree-adjoining Grammars

2015· article· en· W2129388736 on OpenAlexaff
Ziqi Wang, Haotian Zhang, Anoop Sarkar

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œPrague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePython (programming language)ParsingProgramming languageArtificial intelligenceL-attributed grammarRule-based machine translationAdjunctionTree-adjoining grammarNatural language processingTree (set theory)Abstract syntax treeTree structureGrammarData structureContext-free grammarMathematicsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes the design and implementation of a Python-based interface for wide coverage Lexicalized Tree-adjoining Grammars. The grammars are part of the XTAG Grammar project at the University of Pennsylvania, which were hand-written and semi-automatically curated to parse real-world corpora. We provide an interface to the wide coverage English and Korean XTAG grammars. Each XTAG grammar is lexicalized, which means at least one word selects a tree fragment (called an elementary tree or etree). Derivations for sentences are built by combining etrees using substitution (replacement of a tree node with an etree at the frontier of another etree) and adjunction (replacement of an internal tree node in an etree by another etree). Each etree is associated with a feature structure representing constraints on substitution and adjunction. Feature structures are combined using unification during the combination of etrees. We plan to integrate our toolkit for XTAG grammars into the Python-based Natural Language Toolkit (NLTK: nltk.org). We have provided an API capable of searching the lexicalized etrees for a given word or multiple words, searching for a etree by name or function, display the lexicalized etrees to the user using a graphical view, display the feature structure associated with each tree node in an etree, hide or highlight features based on a regular expression, and browsing the entire tree database for each XTAG grammar.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œPrague Bulletin of Mathematical LinguisticsSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207