<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W98-0212">
  <Title>Visualization of Protocols of the Parsing and Semantic Interpretation Steps in a Machine Translation System</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="84" end_page="85" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Analysis of the Data
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Apart from the obvious, explicit information expressed in the protocol entry of each node -the node number, the immediate daughters of the node, and the features associated with it -the process protocol also contains some implicit information which can be retrieved by going through the protocol as a whole. For example, it is possible to check whether a node is used later on in the parsing process and what its mother node(s) is. Going down the tree, it can be determined which part of the input sentence is covered by a particular node. The 'parse forest' (collection of parse trees) can be reconstructed by linking the individual branchings (minimal trees consisting of a mother node and its daughter node(s)) by virtue of the node numbers. Last but not least, the original input sentence can be recovered by concatenating the leaf nodes of the tree.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Individual parse trees are two-dimensional, the two dimensions being precedence (the linear order in which the elements occur in the sentence) and dominance (th e relation between a mother node and its daughter node(s)). Even though both relations are preserved in the process protocols, none of them is immediately obvious from the protocols: Nodes that are neighbors in terms of linear order, or nodes that are connected in terms of dominance do not necessarily appear next to each other in the parse sequence. Consider, for example, the parse sequence in Figure 2. The node created by step 1 is used again in the steps 3 and 6. Whereas for step 3 the sister nodes 1 and 2 happen to be adjacent, this is not true for step 6. Here, the two nodes that make up the first interpretation are separated by the nodes 2, 3 and 4. Equally, the dominance relation between parse nodes is usually obscured by intermediate parse steps. If we also take into account the issue of ambiguity, we have to deal with it as a third dimension, as illustrated in Figure 2.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Keeping in mind the purpose of examining the data, which is first and above all error tracing and quality control, we can thus distinguish four aspects of the information contained in the process protocols. These aspects are: the overall structure, i.e., information about the constituent structure (parse forest) of the sentence, and about the way it is built up from lexical items; the details, i.e., information about the properties of the constitutents as preserved in the feature structures associated with  to the parse sequence in the lower left frame. The category labels and node numbers in the lower left frame are hyperlinks. A click on a category label will cause the browser to display the feature structure(s) associated with that node in the frame on the right. A click on a node number will lead to the respective node within the parse sequence. each node; * ambiguity, i.e., the number of interpretations associated with each node; * the relation between the parse sequence and the input, i.e., information about the connection of each node in the parse sequence to the part of the sentence that is covered by this node, and, in reverse, the connection of each word or morpheme of the input to the node that integrates this word or morpheme into the parse sequence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Whereas the connection of each node to the input can be considered a property of the respective node, the connection of the input to the parse sequence is a matter of indexing that will ease access to 'trouble spots' when testing changes to the syntactic grammar or the semantic interpretation rules.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>