| tech,4-1-P03-2036,ak | </term> . An empirical comparison of <term> | CFG filtering techniques | </term> for <term> LTAG </term> and <term> HPSG | #5114 An empirical comparison ofCFG filtering techniques for LTAG and HPSG is presented. | |
| other,8-1-P03-2036,ak | CFG filtering techniques </term> for <term> | LTAG | </term> and <term> HPSG </term> is presented | #5118 An empirical comparison of CFG filtering techniques forLTAG and HPSG is presented. | |
| other,10-1-P03-2036,ak | techniques </term> for <term> LTAG </term> and <term> | HPSG | </term> is presented . We demonstrate that | #5120 An empirical comparison of CFG filtering techniques for LTAG andHPSG is presented. | |
| other,6-2-P03-2036,ak | demonstrate that an approximation of <term> | HPSG | </term> produces a more effective <term> CFG | #5130 We demonstrate that an approximation ofHPSG produces a more effective CFG filter than that of LTAG. | |
| tech,11-2-P03-2036,ak | HPSG </term> produces a more effective <term> | CFG filter | </term> than that of <term> LTAG </term> . We | #5135 We demonstrate that an approximation of HPSG produces a more effectiveCFG filter than that of LTAG. | |
| other,16-2-P03-2036,ak | <term> CFG filter </term> than that of <term> | LTAG | </term> . We also investigate the reason | #5140 We demonstrate that an approximation of HPSG produces a more effective CFG filter than that ofLTAG. |
