<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W99-0635">
  <Title>Corpus-Based Approach for Nominal Compound Analysis for Korean Based on Linguistic and Statistical Information</Title>
  <Section position="8" start_page="297" end_page="298" type="evalu">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Experimental Results
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> For experiments, we collected 387 nominal compounds fronl a million word corpus. Nominal compounds conlposed of more. than tbur nouns (a series of 5 nouns or more) are excluded because the number of them is too small to evaluate our system.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Some examples of analysis are shown in Table 5. In the table, the modifier-head relation is represented with MH, and the complement-predicate is described with OBJ and SUBJ that means object and subject respectively. No depedency between nouns is marked with '-' For instance, the modifier-head relation is assigned to &amp;quot;MUSOG SINANG&amp;quot; which have the meaning of the religion o.f private society that is traditional and s'alJerstitio'as. However, we don't know about the semantic relation hidden in the results analyzed. In addition, the nominal compound &amp;quot;JISIK'IN-YI(intellex:tual's) CHAEK'IM (responsibility) HOIPI(evasion)&amp;quot; means that the intellectual evades h, is responsibility. Actually, its structure is determined as \[JISIK'IN-YI,s,,t~./ \[CHAEK'IMot~./ HOIPIv\]\] which can be ext)anded to a, siml)le sentence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Bracketed patterns of the example uonfinal conlpounds are shown in %tble 6. According to the table, the baseline a.ccm'acy of the default system is at least 73.6%. As shown in Table 7, the precision fi)r nnalysis of nominal comt)ounds  if- of n(mns in NP pattern fl'eq</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Ta,lfle 6: the patterns of nominal compound s(;ru(;t;ures ot' the length three and four is about 88.3% and 66.3%. The result is fairly good in that nomi~m.1 compounds of length three occur much more t'requently than those of length four. Overall I~recision of analysis is about 84.2%.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> In addition, we compared three different models to evaluate our system - default model by the dominant pattern, dependency model presented by Kobayasi et al. (1994) and Lauer (1995), a.nd our model. In the default analysis, nomiha.1 compounds were bracketed by the dominant pa,tterns shown in Table 6. For the dependency model, we used the method presented by Lauer (1995).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Table 8 shows the comparison of the results produced by our algorithm and the other two methods. Our system made a better result in the disambiguation process. The results show that the syntactic information in nomihal phrases plays an important role in deciding their structures.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> However, there are still errors produced.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Some nouns has the word sense ambiguity, and are used as both predict~tive noun and common noun. Because of the sense ambiguity, some modifier-head relations are misrecognized to complement-predicate. Other errors contain the same kind of results as (Latter, 1995). To overcome the errors, we think that semantic relations immanent in two nouns are considered.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>