<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="N06-1045">
  <Title>A Better -BestList: Practical Determinization ofWeighted Finite Tree Automata</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="351" end_page="351" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Previous Work
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The formalisms of tree automata are summarized well in (Gecseg and Steinby, 1984). Bottom-up tree recognizers are due to (Thatcher and Wright, 1968), (Doner, 1970), and (Magidor and Moran, 1969). Top-downtreerecognizers aredueto(Rabin, 1969) and(Magidor and Moran,1969). (Comon, et.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> al., 1997) show the determinization of unweighted finite-state tree automata, and prove its correctness. (Borchardt and Vogler, 2003) present determinizationofweighted finite-statetreeautomatawithadifferent method than the one we present here. While ourmethodisapplicable tofinitetreesets,theprevious method claims the ability to determinize some classes of infinite tree sets. However, for the finite case the previous method produces an automaton with size on the order of the number of derivations, so the technique is limited when applied to real world data.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>