[pet] handling of unknown lexical items

[John Stewart]

Rebecca,

Thank you, that is helpful.  I'm not using a tagger, and I have cheap
0.99.14svn_cm and the ERG (1004) grammar.  I see from
http://www.coli.uni-saarland.de/~thorsten/tnt/ that TnT has a more
restrictive license.  Would any off-the-shelf tagger that produces
Penn tags work fine?

Best,

jds

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Rebecca Dridan <bec.dridan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you using any sort of POS tagger to annotate the input to PET? I assume
> the online demo is using the TnT tagger, which is the default.  How you feed
> those into the parser depends a bit on which version of the parser and the
> grammar you are using, but you'll definitely want POS-tagged input to get
> decent unknown word handling.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On 26/10/11 8:48 PM, John Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am trying to reproduce the behaviour of the online demo using the
>> command-line PET + ERG system, but having various troubles.  One is
>> with unknown words.  For  the sentence
>>
>> (1)  ugo kissed pilar
>>
>> The online demo returns _ugo/nn_u_unknown and _pilar/nn_u_unknown ,
>> which is correct.
>>
>> Using the command-line tool as follows:
>>
>>> cheap -default-les=all -verbose=3 -mrs english.grm
>>
>> I get the surprising output:
>>
>> (1011 np_frg_c 0 0 3 [root_frag]
>>   (1007 hdn_bnp_c 0 0 3
>>     (1003 n-hdn_cpd_c 0 0 3
>>       (5 gen_generic_noun/n_-_mc-ns-g_le 0 0 1 []
>>         (1 "ugo" 0 0 1<0:1>))
>>       (1000 hdn-n_prnth_c 0 1 3
>>         (610 generic_pl_noun/n_-_c-pl-unk_le 0 1 2 []
>>           (2 "kissed" 0 1 2<1:2>))
>>         (865 generic_pl_noun_ne/n_-_c-pl-gen_le 0 2 3 []
>>           (3 "pilar" 0 2 3<2:3>))))))
>>
>> So an NP fragment.  Incidentally I'm unsure how to read the leaf
>> types, as the format, with "/", seems to not match the templates
>> documented at http://moin.delph-in.net/ErgLeTypes  But in any case,
>> plural nouns are an incorrect default (I get worse results with
>> -default-les=traditional).  Are there cheap switches that will yield
>> the better output given by the online demo?
>>
>> Thanks for any suggestions.
>>
>> jds
>>
>
>