Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on - EACL '09 2009
DOI: 10.3115/1609067.1609120
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Treebank grammar techniques for non-projective dependency parsing

Abstract: An open problem in dependency parsing is the accurate and efficient treatment of non-projective structures. We propose to attack this problem using chart-parsing algorithms developed for mildly contextsensitive grammar formalisms. In this paper, we provide two key tools for this approach. First, we show how to reduce nonprojective dependency parsing to parsing with Linear Context-Free Rewriting Systems (LCFRS), by presenting a technique for extracting LCFRS from dependency treebanks. For efficient parsing, the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
37
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
(15 reference statements)
1
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More specifically, our statistics concern the training sections of the treebanks that were set off for the task. For similar results on other data sets, see Kuhlmann and Nivre (2006), Havelka (2007), and Maier and Lichte (2011).…”
Section: Coverage On Dependency Treebankssupporting
confidence: 73%
“…More specifically, our statistics concern the training sections of the treebanks that were set off for the task. For similar results on other data sets, see Kuhlmann and Nivre (2006), Havelka (2007), and Maier and Lichte (2011).…”
Section: Coverage On Dependency Treebankssupporting
confidence: 73%
“…Exact inference for parsing models that allow non-projective trees is NP hard, except under very restricted independence assumptions (Neuhaus and Bröker, 1997;McDonald and Satta, 2007). There is recent work on algorithms that can cope with important subsets of all nonprojective trees in polynomial time (Kuhlmann and Satta, 2009;Gómez-Rodríguez et al, 2009), but the time complexity is at best O(n 6 ), which can be problematic in practical applications. Even the best algorithms for deterministic parsing run in quadratic time, rather than linear (Nivre, 2008a), unless restricted to a subset of non-projective structures as in Attardi (2006) and Nivre (2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We focus on learning regular expressions with interleaving (shuffle), denoted by RE(&). Since RE(&) are widely used in various areas of computer science [4], including XML database systems [19,14,34], complex event processing [33], system verification [10,21,23], plan recognition [26] and natural language processing [27,39].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%