We evaluated on the English CCGBank ( Hockenmaier and Steedman , 2007 ) , which is a transformation of the Penn Treebank ( Marcus et al. , 1993 ) ; the CTBCCG ( Tse and Curran , 2010 ) transformation of the Penn Chinese Treebank ( Xue et al. , 2005 ) ; and the CCG-TUT corpus ( Bos et al. , 2009 ) , built from the TUT corpus of Italian text ( Bosco et al. , 2000 ) .
building a large annotated corpus of english the penn treebank
Mitchell P Marcus Beatrice Santorini Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz
In our evaluation we compared our supertagcontext approach to ( our reimplementation of ) the best-performing model of our previous work ( Garrette et al. , 2015 ) , which SCM extends . We evaluated on the English CCGBank ( Hockenmaier and Steedman , 2007 ) , which is a transformation of the Penn Treebank ( Marcus et al. , 1993 ) ; the CTBCCG ( Tse and Curran , 2010 ) transformation of the Penn Chinese Treebank ( Xue et al. , 2005 ) ; and the CCG-TUT corpus ( Bos et al. , 2009 ) , built from the TUT corpus of Italian text ( Bosco et al. , 2000 ) . Each corpus was divided into four distinct data sets : a set from which we extract the tag dictionaries , a set of raw ( unannotated ) sentences , a development set , and a test set .
We evaluated on the English CCGBank ( Hockenmaier and Steedman , 2007 ) , which is a transformation of the Penn Treebank ( @@CITATION ) ; the CTBCCG ( Tse and Curran , 2010 ) transformation of the Penn Chinese Treebank ( Xue et al. , 2005 ) ; and the CCG-TUT corpus ( Bos et al. , 2009 ) , built from the TUT corpus of Italian text ( Bosco et al. , 2000 ) .