<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3268" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Hey all,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Some more questions from HW3:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. Does anybody get performance on the BaselineParser like in
the HW (F=30%)? I'm getting F1=16.43% on validation and 16.16% on
test trees.</FONT></DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><BR>2. Is there any purpose to constructing a Grammar object? After
being constructed, it doesn't seem used by the BaselineParser class at
all. Commenting it out seems to have no effect.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>3. Did we cover "Agenda-Based" parsers in class? If so, did we
call them agenda-based parsers? If not, what did we call them?</DIV>
<DIV><BR>4. You might think the BaselineParser would do better if it used HW2's
HMM Tagger instead of the "unigram" tagger (which I think is really just another
version of HW2's most frequent scorer + greedy decoder trellis
combo). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Tagging performance (overall/unknown):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> HW2 HMM perf:
95.8%/65%<BR> HW unigram perf: 92%/40% </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Instead I got a drop in performance from 15% to under
5%. Was anybody else able to hook up their HW2 tagger code to HW3?
If so, what stats do you see?<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>