All

What are you looking for?

All
Projects
Results
Organizations

Quick search

  • Projects supported by TA ČR
  • Excellent projects
  • Projects with the highest public support
  • Current projects

Smart search

  • That is how I find a specific +word
  • That is how I leave the -word out of the results
  • “That is how I can find the whole phrase”

Content Differences in Syntactic and Semantic Representation

The result's identifiers

  • Result code in IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11320%2F19%3A10427120" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11320/19:10427120 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Result on the web

    <a href="https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N19-1047" target="_blank" >https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/N19-1047</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

Alternative languages

  • Result language

    angličtina

  • Original language name

    Content Differences in Syntactic and Semantic Representation

  • Original language description

    Syntactic analysis plays an important role in semantic parsing, but the nature of this role remains a topic of ongoing debate. The debate has been constrained by the scarcity of empirical comparative studies between syntactic and semantic schemes, which hinders the development of parsing methods informed by the details of target schemes and constructions. We target this gap, and take Universal Dependencies (UD) and UCCA as a test case. After abstracting away from differences of convention or formalism, we find that most content divergences can be ascribed to: (1) UCCA&apos;s distinction between a Scene and a non-Scene; (2) UCCA&apos;s distinction between primary relations, secondary ones and participants; (3) different treatment of multi-word expressions, and (4) different treatment of inter-clause linkage. We further discuss the long tail of cases where the two schemes take markedly different approaches. Finally, we show that the proposed comparison methodology can be used for fine-grained evaluation of UCCA parsing, highlighting both challenges and potential sources for improvement. The substantial differences between the schemes suggest that semantic parsers are likely to benefit downstream text understanding applications beyond their syntactic counterparts.

  • Czech name

  • Czech description

Classification

  • Type

    O - Miscellaneous

  • CEP classification

  • OECD FORD branch

    10201 - Computer sciences, information science, bioinformathics (hardware development to be 2.2, social aspect to be 5.8)

Result continuities

  • Project

  • Continuities

Others

  • Publication year

    2019

  • Confidentiality

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů