Francis Tyers at 21:20, 2 October 2013

2013-10-02T21:20:42Z

Unhammer: Created page with 'The current transfer assumes lemma/PoS/sub-pos (and possibly lexical selection) are all completely disambiguated. This reduces parse ambiguity _a lot_. It might even reduce it so…'

2013-10-02T13:20:02Z

Created page with 'The current transfer assumes lemma/PoS/sub-pos (and possibly lexical selection) are all completely disambiguated. This reduces parse ambiguity _a lot_. It might even reduce it so…'

New page

The current transfer assumes lemma/PoS/sub-pos (and possibly lexical selection) are all completely disambiguated. This reduces parse ambiguity _a lot_. It might even reduce it so much that it's not worth it to do parse selection, but simply choose the first, longest match, similar to what transfer currently does. This might make writing a recursive parse module a bit simpler since the Earley parser wouldn't have to keep track of shorter matches, and would not have to do anything after parsing to select between them. It's an empirical question how well that would work though (most likely it would work a lot better for pairs that use syntactic/dependency CG's). --[[User:Unhammer|unhammer]] 13:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:20, 2 October 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The current transfer assumes lemma/PoS/sub-pos (and possibly lexical selection) are all completely disambiguated. This reduces parse ambiguity _a lot_. It might even reduce it so much that it's not worth it to do parse selection, but simply choose the first, longest match, similar to what transfer currently does. This might make writing a recursive parse module a bit simpler since the Earley parser wouldn't have to keep track of shorter matches, and would not have to do anything after parsing to select between them. It's an empirical question how well that would work though (most likely it would work a lot better for pairs that use syntactic/dependency CG's). --[[User:Unhammer\|unhammer]] 13:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)		The current transfer assumes lemma/PoS/sub-pos (and possibly lexical selection) are all completely disambiguated. This reduces parse ambiguity _a lot_. It might even reduce it so much that it's not worth it to do parse selection, but simply choose the first, longest match, similar to what transfer currently does. This might make writing a recursive parse module a bit simpler since the Earley parser wouldn't have to keep track of shorter matches, and would not have to do anything after parsing to select between them. It's an empirical question how well that would work though (most likely it would work a lot better for pairs that use syntactic/dependency CG's). --[[User:Unhammer\|unhammer]] 13:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

			::Check out [[recursive transfer]] :) - [[User:Francis Tyers\|Francis Tyers]] 21:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Earley-based structural transfer for Apertium - Revision history

Francis Tyers at 21:20, 2 October 2013

Unhammer: Created page with 'The current transfer assumes lemma/PoS/sub-pos (and possibly lexical selection) are all completely disambiguated. This reduces parse ambiguity _a lot_. It might even reduce it so…'