7,926 research outputs found
Cross-Lingual Dependency Parsing for Closely Related Languages - Helsinki's Submission to VarDial 2017
This paper describes the submission from the University of Helsinki to the
shared task on cross-lingual dependency parsing at VarDial 2017. We present
work on annotation projection and treebank translation that gave good results
for all three target languages in the test set. In particular, Slovak seems to
work well with information coming from the Czech treebank, which is in line
with related work. The attachment scores for cross-lingual models even surpass
the fully supervised models trained on the target language treebank. Croatian
is the most difficult language in the test set and the improvements over the
baseline are rather modest. Norwegian works best with information coming from
Swedish whereas Danish contributes surprisingly little
Better, Faster, Stronger Sequence Tagging Constituent Parsers
Sequence tagging models for constituent parsing are faster, but less accurate
than other types of parsers. In this work, we address the following weaknesses
of such constituent parsers: (a) high error rates around closing brackets of
long constituents, (b) large label sets, leading to sparsity, and (c) error
propagation arising from greedy decoding. To effectively close brackets, we
train a model that learns to switch between tagging schemes. To reduce
sparsity, we decompose the label set and use multi-task learning to jointly
learn to predict sublabels. Finally, we mitigate issues from greedy decoding
through auxiliary losses and sentence-level fine-tuning with policy gradient.
Combining these techniques, we clearly surpass the performance of sequence
tagging constituent parsers on the English and Chinese Penn Treebanks, and
reduce their parsing time even further. On the SPMRL datasets, we observe even
greater improvements across the board, including a new state of the art on
Basque, Hebrew, Polish and Swedish.Comment: NAACL 2019 (long papers). Contains corrigendu
A non-projective greedy dependency parser with bidirectional LSTMs
The LyS-FASTPARSE team presents BIST-COVINGTON, a neural implementation of
the Covington (2001) algorithm for non-projective dependency parsing. The
bidirectional LSTM approach by Kipperwasser and Goldberg (2016) is used to
train a greedy parser with a dynamic oracle to mitigate error propagation. The
model participated in the CoNLL 2017 UD Shared Task. In spite of not using any
ensemble methods and using the baseline segmentation and PoS tagging, the
parser obtained good results on both macro-average LAS and UAS in the big
treebanks category (55 languages), ranking 7th out of 33 teams. In the all
treebanks category (LAS and UAS) we ranked 16th and 12th. The gap between the
all and big categories is mainly due to the poor performance on four parallel
PUD treebanks, suggesting that some `suffixed' treebanks (e.g. Spanish-AnCora)
perform poorly on cross-treebank settings, which does not occur with the
corresponding `unsuffixed' treebank (e.g. Spanish). By changing that, we obtain
the 11th best LAS among all runs (official and unofficial). The code is made
available at https://github.com/CoNLL-UD-2017/LyS-FASTPARSEComment: 12 pages, 2 figures, 5 table
Morphological word structure in English and Swedish : the evidence from prosody
Trubetzkoy's recognition of a delimitative function of phonology, serving to signal boundaries between morphological units, is expressed in terms of alignment constraints in Optimality Theory, where the relevant constraints require specific morphological boundaries to coincide with phonological structure (Trubetzkoy 1936, 1939, McCarthy & Prince 1993). The approach pursued in the present article is to investigate the distribution of phonological boundary signals to gain insight into the criteria underlying morphological analysis. The evidence from English and Swedish suggests that necessary and sufficient conditions for word-internal morphological analysis concern the recognizability of head constituents, which include the rightmost members of compounds and head affixes. The claim is that the stability of word-internal boundary effects in historical perspective cannot in general be sufficiently explained in terms of memorization and imitation of phonological word form. Rather, these effects indicate a morphological parsing mechanism based on the recognition of word-internal head constituents. Head affixes can be shown to contrast systematically with modifying affixes with respect to syntactic function, semantic content, and prosodic properties. That is, head affixes, which cannot be omitted, often lack inherent meaning and have relatively unmarked boundaries, which can be obscured entirely under specific phonological conditions. By contrast, modifying affixes, which can be omitted, consistently have inherent meaning and have stronger boundaries, which resist prosodic fusion in all phonological contexts. While these correlations are hardly specific to English and Swedish it remains to be investigated to which extent they hold cross-linguistically. The observation that some of the constituents identified on the basis of prosodic evidence lack inherent meaning raises the issue of compositionality. I will argue that certain systematic aspects of word meaning cannot be captured with reference to the syntagmatic level, but require reference to the paradigmatic level instead. The assumption is then that there are two dimensions of morphological analysis: syntagmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for decomposing words in terms of labelled constituents, and paradigmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for establishing relations among (whole) words in the mental lexicon. While meaning is intrinsically connected with paradigmatic analysis (e.g. base relations, oppositeness) it is not essential to syntagmatic analysis
- âŠ