Wide-coverage deep statistical parsing using automatic dependency structure annotation

A number of researchers (Lin 1995; Carroll, Briscoe, and Sanfilippo 1998; Carroll et al. 2002; Clark and Hockenmaier 2002; King et al. 2003; Preiss 2003; Kaplan et al. 2004;Miyao and Tsujii 2004) have convincingly argued for the use of dependency (rather than CFG-tree) representations for parser evaluation. Preiss (2003) and Kaplan et al. (2004) conducted a number of experiments comparing “deep” hand-crafted wide-coverage with “shallow” treebank- and machine-learning based parsers at the level of dependencies, using simple and automatic methods to convert tree output generated by the shallow parsers into dependencies. In this article, we revisit the experiments in Preiss (2003) and Kaplan et al. (2004), this time using the sophisticated automatic LFG f-structure annotation methodologies of Cahill et al. (2002b, 2004) and Burke (2006), with surprising results. We compare various PCFG and history-based parsers (based on Collins, 1999; Charniak, 2000; Bikel, 2002) to find a baseline parsing system that fits best into our automatic dependency structure annotation technique. This combined system of syntactic parser and dependency structure annotation is compared to two hand-crafted, deep constraint-based parsers (Carroll and Briscoe 2002; Riezler et al. 2002). We evaluate using dependency-based gold standards (DCU 105, PARC 700, CBS 500 and dependencies for WSJ Section 22) and use the Approximate Randomization Test (Noreen 1989) to test the statistical significance of the results. Our experiments show that machine-learning-based shallow grammars augmented with sophisticated automatic dependency annotation technology outperform hand-crafted, deep, widecoverage constraint grammars. Currently our best system achieves an f-score of 82.73% against the PARC 700 Dependency Bank (King et al. 2003), a statistically significant improvement of 2.18%over the most recent results of 80.55%for the hand-crafted LFG grammar and XLE parsing system of Riezler et al. (2002), and an f-score of 80.23% against the CBS 500 Dependency Bank (Carroll, Briscoe, and Sanfilippo 1998), a statistically significant 3.66% improvement over the 76.57% achieved by the hand-crafted RASP grammar and parsing system of Carroll and Briscoe (2002)

Parsing as Reduction

We reduce phrase-representation parsing to dependency parsing. Our reduction is grounded on a new intermediate representation, "head-ordered dependency trees", shown to be isomorphic to constituent trees. By encoding order information in the dependency labels, we show that any off-the-shelf, trainable dependency parser can be used to produce constituents. When this parser is non-projective, we can perform discontinuous parsing in a very natural manner. Despite the simplicity of our approach, experiments show that the resulting parsers are on par with strong baselines, such as the Berkeley parser for English and the best single system in the SPMRL-2014 shared task. Results are particularly striking for discontinuous parsing of German, where we surpass the current state of the art by a wide margin

Structured Training for Neural Network Transition-Based Parsing

We present structured perceptron training for neural network transition-based dependency parsing. We learn the neural network representation using a gold corpus augmented by a large number of automatically parsed sentences. Given this fixed network representation, we learn a final layer using the structured perceptron with beam-search decoding. On the Penn Treebank, our parser reaches 94.26% unlabeled and 92.41% labeled attachment accuracy, which to our knowledge is the best accuracy on Stanford Dependencies to date. We also provide in-depth ablative analysis to determine which aspects of our model provide the largest gains in accuracy

LFG without C-structures

We explore the use of two dependency parsers, Malt and MST, in a Lexical Functional Grammar parsing pipeline. We compare this to the traditional LFG parsing pipeline which uses constituency parsers. We train the dependency parsers not on classical LFG f-structures but rather on modified dependency-tree versions of these in which all words in the input sentence are represented and multiple heads are removed. For the purposes of comparison, we also modify the existing CFG-based LFG parsing pipeline so that these "LFG-inspired" dependency trees are produced. We find that the differences in parsing accuracy over the various parsing architectures is small

From news to comment: Resources and benchmarks for parsing the language of web 2.0

We investigate the problem of parsing the noisy language of social media. We evaluate four all-Street-Journal-trained statistical parsers (Berkeley, Brown, Malt and MST) on a new dataset containing 1,000 phrase structure trees for sentences from microblogs (tweets) and discussion forum posts. We compare the four parsers on their ability to produce Stanford dependencies for these Web 2.0 sentences. We find that the parsers have a particular problem with tweets and that a substantial part of this problem is related to POS tagging accuracy. We attempt three retraining experiments involving Malt, Brown and an in-house Berkeley-style parser and obtain a statistically significant improvement for all three parsers

One model, two languages: training bilingual parsers with harmonized treebanks

We introduce an approach to train lexicalized parsers using bilingual corpora obtained by merging harmonized treebanks of different languages, producing parsers that can analyze sentences in either of the learned languages, or even sentences that mix both. We test the approach on the Universal Dependency Treebanks, training with MaltParser and MaltOptimizer. The results show that these bilingual parsers are more than competitive, as most combinations not only preserve accuracy, but some even achieve significant improvements over the corresponding monolingual parsers. Preliminary experiments also show the approach to be promising on texts with code-switching and when more languages are added.Comment: 7 pages, 4 tables, 1 figur

Nightmare at test time: How punctuation prevents parsers from generalizing

Punctuation is a strong indicator of syntactic structure, and parsers trained on text with punctuation often rely heavily on this signal. Punctuation is a diversion, however, since human language processing does not rely on punctuation to the same extent, and in informal texts, we therefore often leave out punctuation. We also use punctuation ungrammatically for emphatic or creative purposes, or simply by mistake. We show that (a) dependency parsers are sensitive to both absence of punctuation and to alternative uses; (b) neural parsers tend to be more sensitive than vintage parsers; (c) training neural parsers without punctuation outperforms all out-of-the-box parsers across all scenarios where punctuation departs from standard punctuation. Our main experiments are on synthetically corrupted data to study the effect of punctuation in isolation and avoid potential confounds, but we also show effects on out-of-domain data.Comment: Analyzing and interpreting neural networks for NLP, EMNLP 2018 worksho

Unsupervised Dependency Parsing: Let's Use Supervised Parsers

We present a self-training approach to unsupervised dependency parsing that reuses existing supervised and unsupervised parsing algorithms. Our approach, called `iterated reranking' (IR), starts with dependency trees generated by an unsupervised parser, and iteratively improves these trees using the richer probability models used in supervised parsing that are in turn trained on these trees. Our system achieves 1.8% accuracy higher than the state-of-the-part parser of Spitkovsky et al. (2013) on the WSJ corpus.Comment: 11 page