<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-2160">
  <Title>Computing Phrasal-signs in HPSG prior to Parsing</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="954" end_page="954" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
6 ExI)eriments
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We have implenmnted our parsing metho&lt;l in Common Lisp Ol)je&lt;:t Systen~. hnprovenmnt by our method has /)een measured on 70 ra.ndonfly selected Japanese sentences from a newsl)at)er (Asahi Shinbun). The used grammar (',onsists of just 5 rule schemata, which are generated fl'om principles and rewriting rules, aim 55 default lexical entries given for each part of speech, with 44 manually tailored lexical entries. The total number of states in the LAs compiled fl'oln them was 1490. The grammar does not have a semantic part. The results arc. l)resented in Figure 9. Our grammar produ&lt;:ed l&gt;ossil)le parse trees for 43 senten&lt;'.es (61.4%). We compared the. execution time of our I)arsing method and a more naive algorithm, which l)erforms Phase 1 parsing with LAs and al)plys rule s(:hemata to (:olnph'.ted pars&lt;; trees in the naive way described in Se&lt;:tion 2. As the. naive algorithm caused thrashing for storage in GC, it is pointless to compare those tigures simply. However, it is obvious that our method is much fi~ster than the naive one. We could not measure the execution time for a totally naive algorithm which t)uilds parse trees without LAs because of Uwashing. null</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>