Non-projective dependency parsing using spanning tree algorithms

624Citations
Citations of this article
427Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We formalize weighted dependency parsing as searching for maximum spanning trees (MSTs) in directed graphs. Using this representation, the parsing algorithm of Eisner (1996) is sufficient for searching over all projective trees in O(n3) time. More surprisingly, the representation is extended naturally to non-projective parsing using Chu-Liu-Edmonds (Chu and Liu, 1965; Edmonds, 1967) MST algorithm, yielding an O(n2) parsing algorithm. We evaluate these methods on the Prague Dependency Treebank using online large-margin learning techniques (Crammer et al., 2003; McDonald et al., 2005) and show that MST parsing increases efficiency and accuracy for languages with non-projective dependencies. © 2005 Association for Computational Linguistics.

References Powered by Scopus

Online large-margin training of dependency parsers

633Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Finding optimum branchings

282Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Pseudo-projective dependency parsing

208Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

CoNLL-X shared task on multilingual dependency parsing

544Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Ensemble of feature sets and classification algorithms for sentiment classification

501Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The CoNLL-2008 shared task on joint parsing of syntactic and semantic dependencies

387Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

McDonald, R., Pereira, F., Ribarov, K., & Hajǐc, J. (2005). Non-projective dependency parsing using spanning tree algorithms. In HLT/EMNLP 2005 - Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Proceedings of the Conference (pp. 523–530). Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). https://doi.org/10.3115/1220575.1220641

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 206

69%

Researcher 59

20%

Professor / Associate Prof. 24

8%

Lecturer / Post doc 8

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 267

80%

Linguistics 44

13%

Engineering 15

5%

Business, Management and Accounting 7

2%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
References: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free