| Challenge: | Eye trackers and gaze features collected from them have been recently applied to natural language processing (NLP) tasks such as part-of-speech tagging. |
| Approach: | They propose to leverage eye-tracking data in an RNN dependency parser when no aggregated or token-level gaze features are used at inference time. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can be used to improve performance on non-gazed treebanks. |
Similar Papers
Instance-Based Neural Dependency Parsing (2021.tacl-1)
Copied to clipboard
Hiroki Ouchi, Jun Suzuki, Sosuke Kobayashi, Sho Yokoi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Masashi Yoshikawa, Kentaro Inui
| Challenge: | Existing models that use instance-based inference for dependency parsing are difficult to understand for humans. |
| Approach: | They develop neural models that adopt an interpretable inference process for dependency parsing. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models achieve competitive accuracy with standard neural models and have plausibility of instance-based explanations. |
Sequence Labeling Parsing by Learning across Representations (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Constituency and dependency parsing are the main abstractions for representing syntactic structure of sentences . constituency parsers are considered disjointed tasks, and their improvements have been obtained separately. |
| Approach: | They propose to add auxiliary loss to constituency parsing paradigms and explore a model that parses both paradigms at no cost. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms single-task models by 1.05 F1 points and 0.62 UAS points for constituency parsing and dependency parsers. |
Bayesian Learning for Neural Dependency Parsing (N19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Several approaches for dependency parsing in the small data regime have been proposed. |
| Approach: | They propose to use stochastic gradient Langevin dynamics to generate samples from the approximated posterior to overcome the computational and statistical costs of the approximate inference step. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms the biaffine model on 6 languages with less than 5k training instances and improves across five languages. |
AMR Parsing as Sequence-to-Graph Transduction (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) parsing is the task of transducing natural language text into AMR, a graphbased formalism used for capturing sentence-level semantics. |
| Approach: | They propose a model that treats AMR parsing as sequence-to-graph transduction by aligner-free, and can be effectively trained with limited amounts of labeled AMR data. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms all previously reported SMATCH scores on AMR 2.0 (76.3%) and AMR 1.0 (70.2%). |
Viable Dependency Parsing as Sequence Labeling (N19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work on dependency parsing by sequence labeling suggested that it was impractical. |
| Approach: | They propose to use dependency trees as sequence labels to obtain fast and accurate parsers using a conventional BILSTM-based model. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models are conceptually simple, not needing traditional parsing algorithms or auxiliary structures, and provide a good speed-accuracy tradeoff, with results competitive with more complex approaches. |
Dependency-based Mixture Language Models (2022.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models to incorporate syntactic structures into neural language models have relied heavily on elaborate components for a specific language model, which makes them unwieldy in practice to fit into other models. |
| Approach: | They propose a dependency-based mixture language model that incorporates syntactic structures into neural language models by mixing previous dependency modeling probabilities with self-attention. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method can be easily and effectively applied to different neural language models while improving neural text generation on various tasks. |
Multitask Learning for Cross-Lingual Transfer of Broad-coverage Semantic Dependencies (2020.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for developing broad-coverage semantic dependency parsers for languages without semantically annotated data are limited to English, Czech and Chinese. |
| Approach: | They propose a multitask learning framework coupled with annotation projection to build broad-coverage semantic dependency parsers for languages without annotated resources. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves labeled F1 score on multitask tasks from English to Czech compared to baseline models . |
Parsing as Tagging (2020.lrec-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for dependency parsing treat parse as tagging, but they are not perfect. |
| Approach: | They propose a simple yet accurate method that treats parsing as tagging . they use a sequence model with a bidirectional LSTM over BERT embeddings . |
| Outcome: | The proposed method outperforms the state-of-the-art method on universal dependency (UD) by 1.76% unlabeled attachment score (UAS) for English, 1.98% UAS for French, and 1.16% UAS in German. |
A Little Pretraining Goes a Long Way: A Case Study on Dependency Parsing Task for Low-resource Morphologically Rich Languages (2021.eacl-srw)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Neural dependency parsing has been a success for many domains and languages, but the bottleneck of massive labelled data limits its effectiveness for low resource languages. |
| Approach: | They propose to use morphological knowledge to improve dependency parsing for morphology rich languages in a low-resource setting to perform experiments. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method achieves an average gain of 2 points (UAS) and 3.6 points (LAS) on 10 MRLs in low-resource settings. |
Leveraging AMR Graph Structure for Better Sequence-to-Sequence AMR Parsing (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies on AMR parsing often regard this task as a seq2seq translation problem. |
| Approach: | They propose to translate AMR graphs into AMR token sequences in pre-processing and recover AMR from sequences after decoding. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approach outperforms baseline and achieves 85.5 0.1 and 84.2 0.2 Smatch scores on AMR 2.0 and AMR 3.0. |