Divisible Transition Systems and Multiplanar Dependency Parsing

Transition-based parsing is a widely used approach for dependency parsing that combines high efficiency with expressive feature models. Many different transition systems have been proposed, often formalized in slightly different frameworks. In this article, we show that a large number of the known systems for projective dependency parsing can be viewed as variants of the same stack-based system with a small set of elementary transitions that can be composed into complex transitions and restricted in different ways. We call these systems divisible transition systems and prove a number of theoretical results about their expressivity and complexity. In particular, we characterize an important subclass called efficient divisible transition systems that parse planar dependency graphs in linear time. We go on to show, first, how this system can be restricted to capture exactly the set of planar dependency trees and, secondly, how the system can be generalized to k-planar trees by making use of multiple stacks. Using the first known efficient test for k-planarity, we investigate the coverage of k-planar trees in available dependency treebanks and find a very good fit for 2-planar trees. We end with an experimental evaluation showing that our 2-planar parser gives significant improvements in parsing accuracy over the corresponding 1-planar and projective parsers for data sets with non-projective dependency trees and performs on a par with the widely used arc-eager pseudo-projective parser.

[1]  Sabine Buchholz,et al.  CoNLL-X Shared Task on Multilingual Dependency Parsing , 2006, CoNLL.

[2]  Giuseppe Attardi,et al.  Experiments with a Multilanguage Non-Projective Dependency Parser , 2006, CoNLL.

[3]  Marco Kuhlmann,et al.  Dependency Structures and Lexicalized Grammars An Algebraic Approach , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[4]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Transition-based Dependency Parsing with Rich Non-local Features , 2011, ACL.

[5]  Kemal Oflazer,et al.  The Annotation Process in the Turkish Treebank , 2003, LINC@EACL.

[6]  Peng Xu,et al.  Using a Dependency Parser to Improve SMT for Subject-Object-Verb Languages , 2009, NAACL.

[7]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  A Transition-Based Parser for 2-Planar Dependency Structures , 2010, ACL.

[8]  Giorgio Satta,et al.  Exact Inference for Generative Probabilistic Non-Projective Dependency Parsing , 2011, EMNLP.

[9]  Victor M. Darriba,et al.  Undirected Dependency Parsing , 2015, Comput. Intell..

[10]  Kenji Sagae,et al.  Dynamic Programming for Linear-Time Incremental Parsing , 2010, ACL.

[11]  Giorgio Satta,et al.  Treebank Grammar Techniques for Non-Projective Dependency Parsing , 2009, EACL.

[12]  Jirí Havelka Beyond Projectivity: Multilingual Evaluation of Constraints and Measures on Non-Projective Structures , 2007, ACL.

[13]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Inductive Dependency Parsing (Text, Speech and Language Technology) , 2006 .

[14]  Joakim Nivre Incremental Non-Projective Dependency Parsing , 2007, HLT-NAACL.

[15]  Sabine Brants,et al.  The TIGER Treebank , 2001 .

[16]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems , 1972, 50 Years of Integer Programming.

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

[18]  Sebastian Riedel,et al.  Incremental Integer Linear Programming for Non-projective Dependency Parsing , 2006, EMNLP.

[19]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Characterizing the Errors of Data-Driven Dependency Parsing Models , 2007, EMNLP.

[20]  Lucien Tesnière Éléments de syntaxe structurale , 1959 .

[21]  Jan Hajic,et al.  Prague Arabic Dependency Treebank: Development in Data and Tools , 2004 .

[22]  Jan Hajic,et al.  The Prague Dependency Treebank , 2003 .

[23]  Vittorio Castelli,et al.  Event Matching Using the Transitive Closure of Dependency Relations , 2008, ACL.

[24]  David J. Weir,et al.  Parsing Mildly Non-Projective Dependency Structures , 2009, EACL.

[25]  David J. Weir,et al.  Dependency Parsing Schemata and Mildly Non-Projective Dependency Parsing , 2011, CL.

[26]  Chris Quirk,et al.  Dependency Treelet Translation: Syntactically Informed Phrasal SMT , 2005, ACL.

[27]  Michael Collins,et al.  Efficient Third-Order Dependency Parsers , 2010, ACL.

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

[29]  Igor Mel’čuk,et al.  Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice , 1987 .

[30]  Xin-She Yang,et al.  Introduction to Algorithms , 2021, Nature-Inspired Optimization Algorithms.

[31]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Labeled Pseudo-Projective Dependency Parsing with Support Vector Machines , 2006, CoNLL.

[32]  Ann Bies,et al.  The Penn Treebank: Annotating Predicate Argument Structure , 1994, HLT.

[33]  Eckhard Bick,et al.  Floresta Sintá(c)tica: A treebank for Portuguese , 2002, LREC.

[34]  Beatrice Santorini,et al.  Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank , 1993, CL.

[35]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Non-Projective Dependency Parsing in Expected Linear Time , 2009, ACL.

[36]  Stephen Clark,et al.  A Tale of Two Parsers: Investigating and Combining Graph-based and Transition-based Dependency Parsing , 2008, EMNLP.

[37]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  MAMBA Meets TIGER: Reconstructing a Swedish Treebank from Antiquity , 2005 .

[38]  Tetsuji Nakagawa,et al.  Multilingual Dependency Parsing Using Global Features , 2007, EMNLP.

[39]  Eric P. Xing,et al.  Turbo Parsers: Dependency Parsing by Approximate Variational Inference , 2010, EMNLP.

[40]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Pseudo-Projective Dependency Parsing , 2005, ACL.

[41]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Principles and Implementation of Deductive Parsing , 1994, J. Log. Program..

[42]  Eric P. Xing,et al.  Concise Integer Linear Programming Formulations for Dependency Parsing , 2009, ACL.

[43]  Richard Hudson,et al.  English word grammar , 1995 .

[44]  Ivan Titov,et al.  A Latent Variable Model for Generative Dependency Parsing , 2007, Trends in Parsing Technology.

[45]  Xavier Carreras,et al.  Experiments with a Higher-Order Projective Dependency Parser , 2007, EMNLP.

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

[47]  Mark Stevenson,et al.  Comparing Information Extraction Pattern Models , 2006 .

[48]  Timm Lichte,et al.  Characterizing Discontinuity in Constituent Treebanks , 2009, FG.

[49]  Yoav Goldberg,et al.  An Efficient Algorithm for Easy-First Non-Directional Dependency Parsing , 2010, NAACL.

[50]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Memory-Based Dependency Parsing , 2004, CoNLL.

[51]  Aron Culotta,et al.  Dependency Tree Kernels for Relation Extraction , 2004, ACL.

[52]  Gertjan van Noord,et al.  The Alpino Dependency Treebank , 2001, CLIN.

[53]  Marco Kuhlmann,et al.  Mildly Context-Sensitive Dependency Languages , 2007, ACL.

[54]  Yuji Matsumoto,et al.  Statistical Dependency Analysis with Support Vector Machines , 2003, IWPT.

[55]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Incrementality in Deterministic Dependency Parsing , 2004 .

[56]  Udo Hahn,et al.  Evaluating the Impact of Alternative Dependency Graph Encodings on Solving Event Extraction Tasks , 2010, EMNLP.

[57]  Fernando Pereira,et al.  Online Learning of Approximate Dependency Parsing Algorithms , 2006, EACL.

[58]  Alexis Nasr,et al.  Pseudo-Projectivity, A Polynomially Parsable Non-Projective Dependency Grammar , 1998, ACL.

[59]  Treebank Penn,et al.  Linguistic Data Consortium , 1999 .

[60]  Manuel Bodirsky,et al.  Well-Nested Drawings as Models of Syntactic Structure ? , 2005 .

[61]  Eduard H. Hovy,et al.  A Fast, Accurate, Non-Projective, Semantically-Enriched Parser , 2011, EMNLP.

[62]  Dietrich Klakow,et al.  Exploring Correlation of Dependency Relation Paths for Answer Extraction , 2006, ACL.

[63]  M. Trautner,et al.  The Danish Dependency Treebank and the DTAG Treebank Tool , 2003 .

[64]  Jun'ichi Tsujii,et al.  Shift-Reduce Dependency DAG Parsing , 2008, COLING.

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

[66]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Inductive Dependency Parsing , 2006, Text, speech and language technology.

[67]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Algorithms for Deterministic Incremental Dependency Parsing , 2008, CL.

[68]  Dilek Z. Hakkani-Tür,et al.  Building a Turkish Treebank , 2003 .

[69]  Koby Crammer,et al.  Online Large-Margin Training of Dependency Parsers , 2005, ACL.

[70]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Mildly Non-Projective Dependency Structures , 2006, ACL.

[71]  Qun Liu,et al.  Bilingually-Constrained (Monolingual) Shift-Reduce Parsing , 2009, EMNLP.

[72]  Alexander M. Rush,et al.  Dual Decomposition for Parsing with Non-Projective Head Automata , 2010, EMNLP.

[73]  Giorgio Satta,et al.  Dynamic Programming Algorithms for Transition-Based Dependency Parsers , 2011, ACL.

[74]  David A. Smith,et al.  Dependency Parsing by Belief Propagation , 2008, EMNLP.

[75]  Giorgio Satta,et al.  On the Complexity of Non-Projective Data-Driven Dependency Parsing , 2007, IWPT.

[76]  Richard Johansson,et al.  Investigating Multilingual Dependency Parsing , 2006, CoNLL.

[77]  Anssi Yli-Jyrä,et al.  Multiplanarity - a model for dependency structures in treebanks , 2003 .