Improving the accuracy of Natural Language Dependency Parsing

The aim of this thesis is to improve Natural Language Dependency Parsing. We employ a linear Shift Reduce Dependency parsing algorithm avoiding the increase of computational costs. We start by presenting our experiments results achieved during our participation at the multilingual dependency shared task of Conference on Computational Natural Language (CoNLL) 2007. We perform an accurate error analysis of the best parsers presented at the conference to reveal critical aspects of parsing systems. This will lead us to introduce a new parsing method and a new parser combination algorithm with the purpose of improving the deterministic Shift Reduce parser’s accuracy. The new parsing method, called Reverse Revision Parsing, employs a Left-to-Right Shift Reduce parser that parses the sentence followed by a second Right-to-Left Shift Reduce parser that scans the sentence in reverse using additional features obtained from the prediction of the first parser. The new parser combination algorithm, called QuasiLinear Parser Combination, exploits the fact that its inputs are trees in order to avoid the quadratic cost of algorithms for computing the maximum spanning tree of a graph. We report on our experiments’ results obtained during the participation at CoNLL 2008 evaluation task. These results have been achieved employing the Reverse Revision Parsing and a new combination algorithm presented during the course of this thesis. We then present a number of experiments meant to select a set of features that provides the greatest improvement to a Shift Reduce statistical dependency parser. We report on the accuracy gains that such parser can obtain using features from gold chunks, from chunks produced using a statistical chunker and from approximate chunks obtained by detecting noun phrases through regular expression patterns. A parser exploiting features from approximate chunks is applied to a chunking task and its accuracy in chunking is compared to that of a specialized statistical chunker. Finally, we investigate the performances achieved by parsers when they apply to languages that are characterized by a relatively free word order and by a rich morphology. Thus, we perform a detailed quantitative analysis of distributional language data highlighting the relative contribution of a number of distributed grammatical and semantic factors in parsing. We therefore introduce Animacy, a semantic feature usually not present in available treebanks, and discuss its effect in parsing.

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

[2]  Alon Lavie,et al.  A Best-First Probabilistic Shift-Reduce Parser , 2006, ACL.

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

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

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

[6]  Giorgio Satta,et al.  Efficient Parsing for Bilexical Context-Free Grammars and Head Automaton Grammars , 1999, ACL.

[7]  Nicoletta Calzolari,et al.  SIMPLE: A General Framework for the Development of Multilingual Lexicons , 2000, LREC.

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

[9]  Y. Singer,et al.  Ultraconservative online algorithms for multiclass problems , 2003 .

[10]  Vito Pirrelli,et al.  Corpus-based Modelling of Grammar Variation , 2007 .

[11]  Ralph Grishman,et al.  The NomBank Project: An Interim Report , 2004, FCP@NAACL-HLT.

[12]  Ralph Grishman,et al.  A Procedure for Quantitatively Comparing the Syntactic Coverage of English Grammars , 1991, HLT.

[13]  John Hutchins,et al.  Retrospect and prospect in computer-based translation , 1999, MTSUMMIT.

[14]  Ivan Titov,et al.  Constituent Parsing with Incremental Sigmoid Belief Networks , 2007, ACL.

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

[16]  Xavier Carreras,et al.  Introduction to the CoNLL-2005 Shared Task: Semantic Role Labeling , 2005, CoNLL.

[17]  Adam L. Berger,et al.  A Maximum Entropy Approach to Natural Language Processing , 1996, CL.

[18]  Vito Pirrelli,et al.  SHALLOW PARSING AND TEXT CHUNKING: A VIEW ON UNDERSPECIFICATION IN SYNTAX , 2002 .

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

[20]  Díaz de Ilarraza Construction of a Basque Dependency Treebank , 2003 .

[21]  Tsujii Jun'ichi,et al.  Maximum entropy estimation for feature forests , 2002 .

[22]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Deterministic Dependency Parsing of English Text , 2004, COLING.

[23]  Sebastian Riedel,et al.  The CoNLL 2007 Shared Task on Dependency Parsing , 2007, EMNLP.

[24]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model , 2003 .

[25]  Tadao Kasami,et al.  An Efficient Recognition and Syntax-Analysis Algorithm for Context-Free Languages , 1965 .

[26]  Giuseppe Attardi,et al.  Tree Revision Learning for Dependency Parsing , 2007, NAACL.

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

[28]  Giuseppe Attardi,et al.  Dependency Parsing with Second-Order Feature Maps and Annotated Semantic Information , 2010, Trends in Parsing Technology.

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

[30]  Yuji Matsumoto,et al.  Revision Learning and its Application to Part-of-Speech Tagging , 2002, ACL.

[31]  Judith Aissen,et al.  Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy , 2003 .

[32]  W. Bruce Croft Typology and Universals , 1990 .

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

[34]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

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

[36]  Sabine Buchholz,et al.  Introduction to the CoNLL-2000 Shared Task Chunking , 2000, CoNLL/LLL.

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

[38]  Brian MacWhinney,et al.  A Unified Model of Language Acquisition , 2004 .

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

[40]  Stelios Piperidis,et al.  Theoretical and Practical Issues in the Construction of a Greek Dependency Treebank , 2005 .

[41]  Daniel Gildea,et al.  The Proposition Bank: An Annotated Corpus of Semantic Roles , 2005, CL.

[42]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Single Malt or Blended? A Study in Multilingual Parser Optimization , 2007, EMNLP.

[43]  Steven Abney,et al.  Part-of-Speech Tagging and Partial Parsing , 1997 .

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

[45]  Masaru Tomita,et al.  An Efficient Augmented-Context-Free Parsing Algorithm , 1987, Comput. Linguistics.

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

[47]  John Cocke,et al.  Programming languages and their compilers: Preliminary notes , 1969 .

[48]  Jun'ichi Tsujii,et al.  HPSG Parsing with Shallow Dependency Constraints , 2007, ACL.

[49]  Karel Pala,et al.  Building Czech Wordnet , 2004 .

[50]  Jun'ichi Tsujii,et al.  Dependency Parsing and Domain Adaptation with LR Models and Parser Ensembles , 2007, EMNLP.

[51]  Fernando Pereira,et al.  Multilingual Dependency Analysis with a Two-Stage Discriminative Parser , 2006, CoNLL.

[52]  Xavier Carreras,et al.  Phrase recognition by filtering and ranking with perceptrons , 2003, RANLP.

[53]  Ronald M. Kaplan,et al.  Lexical Functional Grammar A Formal System for Grammatical Representation , 2004 .

[54]  David Short Czech and Slovak , 2008 .

[55]  Eric Brill,et al.  Exploiting Diversity in Natural Language Processing: Combining Parsers , 1999, EMNLP.

[56]  Brian Roark,et al.  Comparing and Combining Finite-State and Context-Free Parsers , 2005, HLT/EMNLP.

[57]  Michael Collins,et al.  Three Generative, Lexicalised Models for Statistical Parsing , 1997, ACL.

[58]  Kenji Sagae,et al.  Parsing of Grammatical Relations in Transcripts of Parent-Child Dialogs , 2005 .

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

[60]  Daniel Zeman,et al.  Improving Parsing Accuracy by Combining Diverse Dependency Parsers , 2005, IWPT.

[61]  Chris Quirk,et al.  Using Dependency Order Templates to Improve Generality in Translation , 2007, WMT@ACL.

[62]  Markus Dickinson,et al.  Computational approaches to morphology and syntax (review) , 2010 .

[63]  Vito Pirrelli,et al.  Probing the Space of Grammatical Variation: Induction of Cross-Lingual Grammatical Constraints from Treebanks , 2006, ACL 2006.

[64]  B MacWhinney,et al.  A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. , 1984, Child development.

[65]  Mitchell P. Marcus,et al.  Maximum entropy models for natural language ambiguity resolution , 1998 .

[66]  Giuseppe Attardi,et al.  Chunking and Dependency Parsing , 2008 .

[67]  Kevin Knight,et al.  Training Tree Transducers , 2004, NAACL.

[68]  Mitchell P. Marcus,et al.  Text Chunking using Transformation-Based Learning , 1995, VLC@ACL.

[69]  Felice Dell'Orletta,et al.  DeSRL: A Linear-Time Semantic Role Labeling System , 2008, CoNLL.

[70]  Daniel H. Younger,et al.  Recognition and Parsing of Context-Free Languages in Time n^3 , 1967, Inf. Control..

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

[72]  Anne Abeillé,et al.  A Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar for English , 1990 .

[73]  János Csirik,et al.  The Szeged Treebank , 2005, TSD.

[74]  Alon Lavie,et al.  Parser Combination by Reparsing , 2006, NAACL.

[75]  Roberto Basili,et al.  Building the Italian Syntactic-Semantic Treebank , 2003 .

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

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

[78]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  Soft Constraints Mirror Hard Constraints: Voice and Person in English and Lummi , 2002 .

[79]  Dan I. Moldovan,et al.  A Temporally-Enhanced PowerAnswer in TREC 2006 , 2006, TREC.

[80]  Adwait Ratnaparkhi,et al.  A Linear Observed Time Statistical Parser Based on Maximum Entropy Models , 1997, EMNLP.

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

[82]  Eugene Charniak,et al.  Statistical Parsing with a Context-Free Grammar and Word Statistics , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[83]  Joakim Nivre,et al.  Generalizing Tree Transformations for Inductive Dependency Parsing , 2007, ACL.

[84]  Fernando Pereira,et al.  Discriminative learning and spanning tree algorithms for dependency parsing , 2006 .

[85]  Aravind K. Joshi,et al.  Tree Adjunct Grammars , 1975, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

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

[87]  Ivan Titov,et al.  Fast and Robust Multilingual Dependency Parsing with a Generative Latent Variable Model , 2007, EMNLP.

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

[89]  Vladimir N. Vapnik,et al.  The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory , 2000, Statistics for Engineering and Information Science.

[90]  Li-Shiuan Peh,et al.  A Divide-and-Conquer Strategy for Parsing , 1996, ArXiv.

[91]  Felice Dell'Orletta,et al.  Multilingual Dependency Parsing and Domain Adaptation using DeSR , 2007, EMNLP.

[92]  Michael Collins,et al.  Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing , 2003, CL.

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

[94]  Michael Collins,et al.  A New Statistical Parser Based on Bigram Lexical Dependencies , 1996, ACL.

[95]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order , 2005 .

[96]  Robert Auty CZECH AND SLOVAK , 1965 .

[97]  Michael Grüninger,et al.  Introduction , 2002, CACM.