Parsing to Stanford Dependencies: Trade-offs between Speed and Accuracy

We investigate a number of approaches to generating Stanford Dependencies, a widely used semantically-oriented dependency representation. We examine algorithms specifically designed for dependency parsing (Nivre, Nivre Eager, Covington, Eisner, and RelEx) as well as dependencies extracted from constituent parse trees created by phrase structure parsers (Charniak, Charniak-Johnson, Bikel, Berkeley and Stanford). We found that constituent parsers systematically outperform algorithms designed specifically for dependency parsing. The most accurate method for generating dependencies is the Charniak-Johnson reranking parser, with 89% (labeled) attachment F1 score. The fastest methods are Nivre, Nivre Eager, and Covington, used with a linear classifier to make local parsing decisions, which can parse the entire Penn Treebank development set (section 22) in less than 10 seconds on an Intel Xeon E5520. However, this speed comes with a substantial drop in F1 score (about 76% for labeled attachment) compared to competing methods. By tuning how much of the search space is explored by the Charniak-Johnson parser, we are able to arrive at a balanced configuration that is both fast and nearly as good as the most accurate approaches.

[1]  Amal Zouaq,et al.  Building Domain Ontologies from Text for Educational Purposes , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[2]  Michael A. Covington,et al.  A Fundamental Algorithm for Dependency Parsing , 2004 .

[3]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  The Stanford Typed Dependencies Representation , 2008, CF+CDPE@COLING.

[4]  Dan Klein,et al.  Learning Accurate, Compact, and Interpretable Tree Annotation , 2006, ACL.

[5]  T. V. Prabhakar,et al.  Sentence Level Sentiment Analysis in the Presence of Conjuncts Using Linguistic Analysis , 2007, ECIR.

[6]  Sanda M. Harabagiu,et al.  Textual Entailment Through Extended Lexical Overlap and Lexico-Semantic Matching , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[7]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Generating Typed Dependency Parses from Phrase Structure Parses , 2006, LREC.

[8]  Oren Etzioni,et al.  Open Information Extraction from the Web , 2007, CACM.

[9]  Jason Eisner,et al.  Three New Probabilistic Models for Dependency Parsing: An Exploration , 1996, COLING.

[10]  Jari Björne,et al.  Extracting Complex Biological Events with Rich Graph-Based Feature Sets , 2009, BioNLP@HLT-NAACL.

[11]  Stefan Harmeling An Extensible Probabilistic Transformation-based Approach to the Third Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[12]  Dan Klein,et al.  Feature-Rich Part-of-Speech Tagging with a Cyclic Dependency Network , 2003, NAACL.

[13]  Jason S. Kessler Polling the Blogosphere: A Rule-Based Approach to Belief Classification , 2008, ICWSM.

[14]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  An Efficient Algorithm for Projective Dependency Parsing , 2003, IWPT.

[15]  Fernando Pereira,et al.  Non-Projective Dependency Parsing using Spanning Tree Algorithms , 2005, HLT.

[16]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  Coarse-to-Fine n-Best Parsing and MaxEnt Discriminative Reranking , 2005, ACL.

[17]  Mirella Lapata,et al.  Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT , 2008 .

[18]  Dan Klein,et al.  Accurate Unlexicalized Parsing , 2003, ACL.

[19]  Yvan Saeys,et al.  Analyzing text in search of bio-molecular events: a high-precision machine learning framework , 2009, BioNLP@HLT-NAACL.

[20]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  A Maximum-Entropy-Inspired Parser , 2000, ANLP.

[21]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  MaltParser: A Data-Driven Parser-Generator for Dependency Parsing , 2006, LREC.

[22]  Tapio Salakoski,et al.  On the unification of syntactic annotations under the Stanford dependency scheme: A case study on BioInfer and GENIA , 2007, BioNLP@ACL.

[23]  Cory B. Giles,et al.  Large-scale directional relationship extraction and resolution , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[24]  Catherine Blake,et al.  The Role of Sentence Structure in Recognizing Textual Entailment , 2007, ACL-PASCAL@ACL.

[25]  Jun'ichi Tsujii,et al.  Task-oriented Evaluation of Syntactic Parsers and Their Representations , 2008, ACL.

[26]  Daniel M. Bikel,et al.  A Distributional Analysis of a Lexicalized Statistical Parsing Model , 2004, EMNLP.

[27]  Ophir Frieder,et al.  IIT TREC 2007 Genomics Track: Using Concept-Based Semantics in Context for Genomics Literature Passage Retrieval , 2007, TREC.