Grcgor Erbach. Using preference values in typed feature structures to exploit non-absolute constraints for disambiguation. In Ilarald rlost, editor, Feature Formalisms and Linguistic Ambiguity. Ellis-Horwood, 1993. Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Preference Logic Grammars - Crowner, Govindarajan, Jayaraman.. (Correct)
....preferences [Kim73, WHF85, Hir87, Sch86, HB90, Hin93, Per85] some research has focused on formalisms for expressing preferences in general. These formalisms represent preferences within typed feature grammars, as numeric preference scores (dynamically in connectionist nets [Usz91] or fixed [Erb92] and within post parsing modules (without scoring [PKd 87] and with scoring [DMP90] The PLG approach to formulating preferences is unique in that it firmly grounds preference in the paradigm of logic programming. Such a grounding, we claim, is vital for enabling a preference formalism to ....
.... Though it requires more of the preference writer, adding criteria to preferences to resolve conflicts is more expressive than methods that order preference rules by sequencing (including nested if then else structures) or by scoring the rules [HB90, Hir87, Erb92, PKd 87, DMP90] The strength of a preference may vary, thus one preference may not consistently override another. Fixed scoring or ordering arrangements are not sensitive to this dynamism. A good example for showing this is preferences based upon lexical association. If the preposition in a ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
G. Erbach. Using Preference Values in Typed Feature Structures to Exploit Non-absolute Constraints for Disambiguation. Technical report, Universitat des Saarlandes, 1992.
Preference Logic Grammars - Jayaraman, Govindarajan, Mantha (1998) (3 citations) (Correct)
.... tradeoffs in attachment decisions; Per85] shows how the principles of minimal attachment and right association can be realized by suitable parsing actions in a bottom up parser; Usz91] presents controlled linguistic deduction as a means for adding control knowledge to declarative grammars; and [Erb92] discusses the use of preference values with typed feature structures and resolving ambiguity by choosing feature structures with the highest preference value. We are at present developing an extension of preference logic grammars to formulate a principled and practical scheme for using ....
G. Erbach. Using Preference Values in Typed Feature Structures to Exploit Non-absolute Constraints for Disambiguation. Technical report, Universitat des Saarlandes, 1992.
Bottom-Up Earley Deduction - Erbach (1994) (3 citations) Self-citation (Erbach) (Correct)
....is identified with the preference value. t;br non unit clauses, where the preference formula may contain uninstantiated variables, the priority is the value of the formula witIt the kee variables instantiated to the highest possible preference value (in case ZFor further details and examples see [4] and [5] 800 of an iuterpretation as probabilities: 1. so that the priority is equal to the maximal possible pre ference value for the clause. s The iml)lcmentation of best first search does not combine ncw items with the chart immedia tely, but makes use of an agenda [8] on which new ....
Grcgor Erbach. Using preference values in typed feature structures to exploit non-absolute constraints for disambiguation. In Ilarald rlost, editor, Feature Formalisms and Linguistic Ambiguity. Ellis-Horwood, 1993.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC