Paper detail

An Empirical Comparison of Parsing Methods for Stanford Dependencies

Stanford typed dependencies are a widely desired representation of natural language sentences, but parsing is one of the major computational bottlenecks in text analysis systems. In light of the evolving definition of the Stanford dependencies and developments in statistical dependency parsing algorithms, this paper revisits the question of Cer et al. (2010): what is the tradeoff between accuracy and speed in obtaining Stanford dependencies in particular? We also explore the effects of input representations on this tradeoff: part-of-speech tags, the novel use of an alternative dependency representation as input, and distributional representaions of words. We find that direct dependency parsing is a more viable solution than it was found to be in the past. An accompanying software release can be found at: http://www.ark.cs.cmu.edu/TBSD

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.