Table Of ContentParsing Universal Dependencies without training
HéctorMartínez Alonso♠ Željko Agic´♥ Barbara Plank♣ Anders Søgaard♦
♠Univ. Paris Diderot,SorbonneParis Cité– Alpage, INRIA, France
♥IT UniversityofCopenhagen,Denmark
♣Center forLanguageandCognition,UniversityofGroningen,TheNetherlands
♦UniversityofCopenhagen, Denmark
[email protected]
Abstract Furthermore, given that UD rests on a series of
simpleprinciplesliketheprimacyoflexicalheads,
7 We propose UDP, the first training-free
cf. Johannsen etal.(2015) for more details, we
1
parser for Universal Dependencies (UD).
0 expectthatsuchaformalismlendsitselfmorenat-
2 OuralgorithmisbasedonPageRankanda urally to a simple and linguistically sound rule-
n small set of head attachment rules. It fea- based approach to cross-lingual parsing. In this
a tures two-step decoding to guarantee that
paperwepresentsuchanapproach.
J
function words are attached as leaf nodes. Oursystemisadependencyparserthatrequires
1
The parser requires no training, and it is
1 no training, and relies solely on explicit part-of-
competitive with a delexicalized transfer
speech(POS)constraintsthatUDimposes. Inpar-
]
L system. UDPoffers a linguistically sound ticular, UDprescribes that trees aresingle-rooted,
C unsupervised alternative to cross-lingual and that function words like adpositions, auxil-
s. parsing for UD, which can be used as a iaries, and determiners are always dependents of
c baseline for such systems. The parser has
contentwords,whileotherformalismsmighttreat
[
very few parameters and is distinctly ro- them as heads (DeMarneffeetal.,2014). We as-
1 busttodomainchangeacrosslanguages.
cribeourworktotheviewpointsofBender(2009)
v
3 abouttheincorporation oflinguistic knowledgein
1 Introduction
6 language-independent systems.
1
Grammarinductionandunsuperviseddependency
3
Contributions Weintroduce, to the best ofour
0 parsing are active fields of research in natural
. knowledge, the first unsupervised rule-based de-
1 language processing (KleinandManning, 2004;
pendencyparserforUniversalDependencies.
0 Gellingetal.,2012). However, many data-driven
7 Ourmethodgoessubstantiallybeyondtheexist-
approaches struggle with learning relations that
1 ing work on rule-aided unsupervised dependency
: match the conventions of the test data, e.g., Klein
v parsing, specifically by:
andManningreported thetendency oftheirDMV
i
X parser to make determiners the heads of German i) adapting the dependency head rules to UD-
ar nouns,whichwouldnotbeanerrorifthetestdata compliant POSrelations,
used a DP analysis (Abney,1987). Even super- ii) incorporating the UD restriction of function
visedtransferapproaches (McDonaldetal.,2011) wordsbeingleaves,
suffer from target adaptation problems when fac- iii) applying personalized PageRank to improve
ingwordorderdifferences. mainpredicate identification, andby
The Universal Dependencies (UD) project iv) makingtheparsingentirelyfreeoflanguage-
(Nivreetal.,2015; Nivreetal.,2016)offers a de- specific parameters by estimating adposition
pendency formalism that aims at providing a attachment direction atruntime.
consistent representation across languages, while Weevaluate oursystem on32languages1 inthree
enforcing a few hard constraints. The ar- setups, depending on the reliability of available
rival of such treebanks, expanded and improved POS tags, and compare to a multi-source delexi-
on a regular basis, provides a new milestone
1Outof33languagesinUDv1.2. WeexcludeJapanese
for cross-lingual dependency parsing research
because the treebank isdistributedwithout word forms and
(McDonaldetal.,2013). hencewecannotprovideresultsonpredictedPOS.
calized transfer system. In addition, we evaluate word-splitting for truly low-resource languages.
the systems’ sensitivity to domain change for a Further, Johannsen etal.(2016) introduced joint
subset of UD languages for which domain infor- projectionofPOSanddependenciesfrommultiple
mationwasretrievable. Theresults exposeasolid sourceswhilesharingtheoutlookonbiasremoval
andcompetitivesystemforallUDlanguages. Our inreal-world multilingual processing.
unsupervised parser compares favorably to delex-
Rule-based parsing Cross-lingual methods, re-
icalized parsing, while being more robust to do-
alistic or not, depend entirely on the availability
mainchange.
of data: for the sources, for the targets, or most
often for both sets of languages. Moreover, they
2 Related work
typically do not exploit constraints placed on lin-
Cross-lingual learning Recent years have seen guisticstructuresthroughaformalism,andtheydo
exciting developments in cross-lingual linguistic sobydesign.
structurepredictionbasedontransferorprojection WiththeemergenceofUDasthepracticalstan-
of POS and dependencies (DasandPetrov,2011; dard for multilingual POS and syntactic depen-
McDonaldetal.,2011). These works mainly use dency annotation, we argue for an approach that
supervised learning and domain adaptation tech- takes a fresh angle on both aspects. Specifically,
niquesforthetargetlanguage. we propose a parser that i) requires no training
The first group of approaches deals with anno- data,andincontrast ii)critically reliesonexploit-
tationprojection(Yarowskyetal.,2001),whereby ingtheUDconstraints.
parallel corpora are used to transfer annotations These two characteristics make our
between resource-rich source languages and low- parser unsupervised. Data-driven unsuper-
resource target languages. Projection relies on vised dependency parsing is now a well-
the availability and quality of parallel corpora, established discipline (KleinandManning,2004;
source-side taggers and parsers, but also tok- Spitkovskyetal.,2010a;
enizers, sentence aligners, and word aligners for Spitkovskyetal.,2010b). Still, the perfor-
sources and targets. Hwaetal.(2005) were the mance of these parsers falls far behind the
first to project syntactic dependencies, and Tiede- approaches involving anysortofsupervision.
mann et al. (2014; 2016) improved on their pro- Our work builds on the line of research
jection algorithm. Current state of the art in on rule-aided unsupervised dependency
cross-lingual dependency parsing involves lever- parsing by Gillenwateretal.(2010) and
aging parallel corpora for annotation projection Naseemetal.(2010), and also relates to Sø-
(MaandXia,2014;RasooliandCollins,2015). gaard’s (2012a; 2012b) work. Our parser,
The second group of approaches deals with however,featurestwokeydifferences:
transferring source parsing models to target lan-
i) the usage of PageRank personalization
guages. ZemanandResnik(2008) were the first
(Lofgren, 2015),andof
to introduce the idea of delexicalization: remov-
ii) two-step decoding to treat content and func-
inglexicalfeaturesbytrainingandcross-lingually
tion words differently according to the UD
applying parsers solely on POS sequences.
formalism.
Søgaard(2011) and McDonaldetal.(2011) inde-
Throughthesedifferences,evenwithoutanytrain-
pendently extended the approach by using mul-
ingdata,weparsenearlyaswellasadelexicalized
tiple sources, requiring uniform POS and depen-
transfer parser, and with increased stability to do-
dencyrepresentations (McDonaldetal.,2013).
mainchange.
Both model transfer and annotation projection
rely on a large number of presumptions to derive
3 Method
their competitive parsing models. By and large,
thesepresumptionsareunrealisticandexclusiveto Our approach does not use any training or unla-
agroupofverycloselyrelated,resource-richIndo- beled data. We have used the English treebank
European languages. Agic´ et al. (2015; 2016) during development to assess the contribution of
exposed some of these biases in their proposal individual head rules, and to tune PageRank pa-
for realistic cross-lingual tagging and parsing, as rameters(Sec.3.1)andfunction-worddirectional-
theyemphasized thelack ofperfect sentence- and ity (Sec. 3.2). Adposition direction is calculated
on the fly at runtime. We refer henceforth to our 1: H =∅;D=∅
2: C =hc1,...cmi;F =hf1,...fmi
UDparserasUDP.
3: forc∈Cdo
4: if|H|=0then
3.1 PageRanksetup 5: h=root
6: else
Our system uses the PageRank (PR) algorithm 7: h=argminj∈H {γ(j,c)|δ(j,c)∧κ(j,c)}
(Pageetal.,1999)toestimate therelevance ofthe 8: endif
9: H =H∪{c}
content words of a sentence. PR uses a random
10: D=D∪{(h,c)}
walk to estimate which nodes in the graph are 11: endfor
more likely to be visited often, and thus, it gives 12: forf ∈F do
13: h=argminj∈H {γ(j,f)|δ(j,f)∧κ(j,f)}
higherranktonodeswithmoreincomingedges,as
14: D=D∪{(h,f)}
well as to nodes connected to those. Using PR to 15: endfor
16: return D
score word relevance requires an effective graph-
building strategy. Wehave experimented with the Figure1: Two-stepdecoding algorithm forUDP.
strategies by Søgaard(2012b), such as words be-
ing connected to adjacent words, but our system
fares best strictly using the dependency rules in have the highest PR, making it the dependent of
Table1tobuildthegraph. UDtreesareoftenvery the root node (Fig. 1, lines 4-5). We use PR per-
flat,andahighlyconnectedgraphyieldsaPRdis- sonalization to give 5 times more weight (over an
tribution that iscloser to uniform, thereby remov- otherwise uniform distribution) tothenode that is
ingsomeofthedifference ofwordrelevance. estimated to be main predicate, i.e., the first verb
We build a multigraph of all words in the sen- orthefirstcontentwordiftherearenoverbs.
tence covered by the head-dependent rules in Ta-
3.2 Headdirection
ble1,givingeachwordanincomingedgeforeach
eligible dependent, i.e., ADV depends on ADJ and Headdirection isanimportanttraitindependency
VERB. This strategy does not always yield con- syntax (Tesnière,1959). Indeed, the UD feature
nectedgraphs,andweuseateleportprobabilityof inventorycontainsatraittodistinguishthegeneral
0.05toensurePRconvergence. adposition tag ADP inpre-andpost-positions.
Teleport probability is the probability that, in Instead of relying on this feature from the tree-
anyiteration ofthePRcalculation, thenextactive banks, which is not always provided, we estimate
node is randomly chosen, instead of being one of the frequency of ADP-NOMINAL vs. NOMINAL-
the adjacent nodes of thecurrent active node. See ADP bigrams.3 We calculate this estimation di-
BrinandPage(2012) for more details on teleport rectly on input data at runtime to keep the system
probability, where the authors refer to one minus training-free. Moreover, it requires very few ex-
teleportprobability asdampingfactor. amples to converge (10-15 sentences). If a lan-
We chose this value incrementally in intervals guage hasmore ADP-NOMINAL bigrams, wecon-
of 0.01 during development until we found the sider all its ADP to be prepositions (and thus de-
smallestvaluethatguaranteed PRconvergence. A pendent ofelements attheir right). Otherwise, we
high teleport probability is undesirable, because considerthempostpositions.
the resulting stationary distribution can be almost For other function words, we have determined
uniform. We did not have to re-adjust this value on the English dev data whether to make them
whenrunningontheactualtestdata. strictly right- or left-attaching, or to allow ei-
The main idea behind our personalized PR ap- ther direction. There, AUX, DET, and SCONJ
proachistheobservationthatrankingisonlyrele- are right-attaching, while CONJ and PUNCT are
vantforcontentwords.2 PRcanincorporate apri- left-attaching. There are no direction constraints
oriknowledge oftherelevance ofnodesbymeans for the rest. Punctuation is a common source of
of personalization, namely giving more weight to parsing errors that has very little interest in this
certainnodes. setup. While wedo evaluate on all tokens includ-
Intuitively, the higher the rank of a word, the ing punctuation, we also apply a heuristic for the
closer it should be to the root node, i.e., the main last token in a sentence; if it is a punctuation, we
predicate of the sentence is the node that should makeitadependent ofthemainpredicate.
2ADJ,NOUN,PROPN,andVERBmarkcontentwords. 3NOMINAL={NOUN,PROPN,PRON}
ADJ −→ ADV then all function words (F) in the second block
NOUN −→ ADJ,NOUN,PROPN whereHisnotupdated, thereby ensuring leafness
NOUN −→ ADP,DET,NUM forallf ∈ F. Theorderofheadattachmentisnot
PROPN −→ ADJ,NOUN,PROPN monotonic wrt. PR between the first and second
PROPN −→ ADP,DET,NUM block, andcan yield non-projectivities. Neverthe-
VERB −→ ADV,AUX,NOUN less,itstillisaone-passalgorithm. Decodingruns
2
VERB −→ PROPN,PRON,SCONJ inlessthanO(n ),namelyO(n×|C|). However,
runningPRincursthemaincomputation cost.
Table1: UDdependency rules.
4 Parserrun example
This section exemplifies a full run of UDP for
3.3 Decoding
the example sentence from the English test data:
Fig. 1 shows the tree-decoding algorithm. It has “They also had a special connection to some ex-
two blocks, namely a first block (3-11) where we tremists”.
assigntheheadofcontentwordsaccordingtotheir
PageRank and the constraints of the dependency 4.1 PageRank
rules,andasecondblock(12-15)whereweassign Given an input sentence and its POStags, we ob-
theheadoffunctionwordsaccordingtotheirprox- tain rank of each word by building a graph using
imity, direction of attachment, and dependency headrules andrunning PRonit. Table2provides
rules. Thealgorithm requires: the sentence, the POS of each word, the number
of incoming edges for each word after building
1. ThePR-sortedlistofcontentwordsC.
the graph with the head rules from Sec. 3.1, and
2. The set of function words F, sorting is irrel-
thepersonalization vectorforPRonthissentence.
evantbecause function-head assignations are
Note that all nodes have the same personalization
inter-independent.
weight, except the estimated main predicate, the
3. A set H for the current possible heads, and
verb“had”.
a set D for the dependencies assigned at
each iteration, which we represent as head-
Word: They also had a special connection to some extremists
dependent tuples(h,d). POS: PRON ADV VERB DET ADJ NOUN ADP DET NOUN
Personalization: 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
4. Asymbolrootfortherootnode. Incomingedges: 0 0 4 0 1 5 0 0 5
5. A function γ(n,m) that gives the linear dis-
Table2: Words,POS,personalization, andincom-
tancebetweentwonodes.
ingedgesfortheexamplesentence.
6. A function κ(h,d) that returns whether the
dependency (h,d) has a valid attachment di-
Table 4 shows the directed multigraph used for
rectiongiventhePOSofthed(cf. Sec.3.2).
PR in detail. We can see, e.g., that the four in-
7. A function δ(h,d) that determines whether
coming edges for the verb “had” from the two
(h,d)islicensedbytherulesinTable1.
nouns, plus from the adverb “also” and the pro-
The head assignations in lines 7 and 13 read as noun“They”.
follow: the head h of a word (either c or f)is the AfterrunningPR,weobtainthefollowingrank-
closestelementofthecurrentlistofheads(H)that ingforcontent words:
has the right direction (κ) and respects the POS- C = hhad,connection,extremists,speciali
dependency rules (δ). These assignations have a Even though the verb has four incoming edges
back-off option to ensure the final D is a tree. If and the nouns have five each, the personalization
theconditionsdeterminedbyκandδaretoostrict, makestheverbthehighest-ranked word.
i.e., if the set of possible heads is empty, we drop
theδ head-ruleconstraintandrecalculatetheclos-
1 2 3
est possible head that respects the directionality 5 7 8
imposed by κ. If the set is empty again, we drop 6 4 9
bothconstraints andassigntheclosesthead. root They also had a special connection to some extremists
Lines4and5enforcethesingle-rootconstraint.
Figure 2: Example dependency tree predicted by
To enforce the leaf status of function nodes, the
thealgorithm.
algorithm firstattaches allcontent words(C),and
4.2 Decoding canonical language name (e.g., Finnish instead of
Finnish-FTB). We use standard unlabeled attach-
Once C is calculated, we can follow the algo-
mentscore(UAS)andevaluateonallsentencesof
rithm in Fig. 1 to obtain a dependency parse.
thecanonical UDtestsets.
Table 3 shows a trace of the algorithm, with
C = hhad,connection,extremists,speciali and
5.1 Baseline
F = {They,also,a,to,some}.
We compare our UDP system with the perfor-
mance of a rule-based baseline that uses the head
it word h H
1 had root ∅ rules in Table 5. The baseline identifies the first
2 connection had {had}
verb(orfirstcontentwordiftherearenoverbs)as
3 extremists had {had,connection}
4 special connection {had,connection,extremists} themainpredicate, andassigns headstoallwords
5 They had {had,connection,extremists,special} accordingtotherulesinTable1. Wehaveselected
6 also had ...
7 a connection ... thesetofhead rules tomaximize precision onthe
8 to extremists ...
developmentset,andtheydonotprovidefullcov-
9 some extremists ...
erage. The system makes any word not covered
Table3: Algorithmtraceforexamplesentence. it: bytherules (e.g.,awordwithaPOSsuchas X or
iteration number, word: current word, H: set of SYM)either dependent oftheir leftorright neigh-
possible heads. bor,accordingtotheestimatedruntimeparameter.
We report the best head direction and its score
The first four iterations calculate the head of for each language in Table 5. This baseline
content words following their PR,and the follow- finds the head of each token based on its clos-
ing iterations attach the function words in F. Fi- est possible head, or on its immediate left or
nally, Fig. 2shows the resulting dependency tree. right neighbor if there is no head rule for the
Full lines are assigned in the first block (content POS at hand, which means that this system does
dependents), dotted lines are assigned in the sec- not necessarily yield well-formed tress. Each
ond block (function dependents). Theedge labels token receives a head, and while the structures
indicate in which iteration the algorithm has as- are single-rooted, they are not necessarily con-
signed each dependency. Note that the algorithm nected. Note that we do not include results for
is deterministic for a certain input POSsequence. theDMVmodelbyKleinandManning(2004),as
Any10-tokensentencewiththePOSlabelsshown it has been outperformed by a system similar to
inTable2wouldyieldthesamedependencytree.4 ours(Søgaard,2012b). Theusualadjacency base-
line for unsupervised dependency parsing, where
5 Experiments
all words depend on their left or right neighbor,
This section describes the data, metrics and com- faresmuchworsethanourbaseline(20%UASbe-
parison systems used to assess the performance low on average) even with an oracle pick for the
of UDP. We evaluate on the test sections of the best per-language direction, and we do not report
UD1.2 treebanks (Nivreetal.,2015) that contain thosescores.
word forms. If there is more than one treebank
5.2 Evaluationsetup
per language, we use the treebank that has the
Our system relies solely on POS tags. To esti-
4The resulting trees always pass the validation script in mate the quality degradation of our system un-
github.com/UniversalDependencies/tools.
dernon-gold POSscenarios, weevaluate UDPon
two alternative scenarios. The first is predicted
−→ They also had a special connection to some extremists POS (UDPP), where we tag the respective test
They - • •
set with TnT (Brants, 2000) trained on each lan-
also - • •
had - guage’s training set. The second is a naive type-
a - • •
special - • • constrained two-POS tag scenario (UDPN), and
connection • - •
to • - • approximates a lower bound. We give each word
some • - •
extremists • • - either CONTENT or FUNCTION tag, depending on
the word’s frequency. The 100 most frequent
Table 4: Matrix representation of the directed
words of the input test section receive the FUNC-
graphforthewordsinthesentence.
TION tag.
Finally, we compare our parser UDP to a su- Language BLG UDPG MSDG MSDP UDPP UDPN
pervised cross-lingual system (MSD). It is a AncientGreek 42.2L 43.4 48.6 46.5 41.6 27.0
Arabic 34.8R 47.8 52.8 52.6 47.6 41.0
multi-source delexicalized transfer parser, re-
Basque 47.8R 45.0 51.2 49.3 43.1 22.8
ferred to as multi-dir in the original paper Bulgarian 54.9R 70.5 78.7 76.6 68.1 27.1
ChurchSlavonic 53.8L 59.2 61.8 59.8 59.2 35.2
by McDonaldetal.(2011). For this baseline Croatian 41.6L 56.7 69.1 65.6 54.5 25.2
we train TurboParser (Martinsetal.,2013) on a Czech 46.5R 61.0 69.5 67.6 59.3 25.3
Danish 47.3R 57.9 70.2 65.6 53.8 26.9
delexicalized training set of 20k sentences, sam- Dutch 36.1L 49.5 57.0 59.2 50.0 24.1
pled uniformly from theUD training data exclud- English 46.2R 53.0 62.1 59.9 51.4 27.9
Estonian 73.2R 70.0 73.4 66.1 65.0 25.3
ingthetargetlanguage. MSDisacompetitiveand Finnish 43.8R 45.1 52.9 50.4 43.1 21.6
French 47.1R 64.5 72.7 70.6 62.1 36.3
realistic baseline in cross-lingual transfer parsing
German 48.2R 60.6 66.9 62.5 57.0 24.2
work. Thisgives usanindication how oursystem Gothic 50.2L 57.5 61.7 59.2 55.8 34.1
Greek 45.7R 58.5 68.0 66.4 57.0 29.3
comparestostandardcross-lingual parsers.
Hebrew 41.8R 55.4 62.0 58.6 52.8 35.7
Hindi 43.9R 46.3 34.6 34.5 45.7 27.0
Hungarian 53.1R 56.7 58.4 56.8 54.8 22.7
5.3 Results
Indonesian 44.6L 60.6 63.6 61.0 58.4 35.3
Irish 47.5R 56.6 62.5 61.3 53.9 35.8
Table 5 shows that UDP is a competitive system; Italian 50.6R 69.4 77.1 75.2 67.9 37.6
Latin 49.4L 56.2 59.8 54.9 52.4 37.1
because UDPG is remarkably close to the super- Norwegian 49.1R 61.7 70.8 67.3 58.6 29.8
vised MSDG system, with an average difference Persian 37.8L 55.7 57.8 55.6 53.6 33.9
Polish 60.8R 68.4 75.6 71.7 65.7 34.6
of 6.4%. Notably, UDP even outperforms MSD
Portuguese 45.8R 65.7 72.8 71.4 64.9 33.5
ononelanguage (Hindi). Romanian 52.7R 63.7 69.2 64.0 58.9 32.1
Slovene 50.6R 63.6 74.7 71.0 56.0 24.3
More interestingly, on the evaluation scenario Spanish 48.2R 63.9 72.9 70.7 62.1 35.0
with predicted POS we observe that our system Swedish 52.4R 62.8 72.2 67.2 58.5 25.3
Tamil 41.4R 34.2 44.2 39.5 32.1 20.3
drops only marginally (2.2%) compared to MSD
Average 47.8 57.5 63.9 61.2 55.3 29.9
(2.7%). In the least robust rule-based setup, the
error propagation rate from POS to dependency Table 5: UAS for baseline with gold POS (BLG)
wouldbedoubled,aseitherawronglytaggedhead with direction (L/R) for backoff attachments,
or dependent would break the dependency rules. UDP with gold POS (UDPG) and predicted POS
However, with an average POS accuracy by TnT (UDPP), PR with naive content-function POS
of 94.1%, the error propagation is 0.37, i.e, each (UDPN),andmulti-sourcedelexicalizedwithgold
POS error causes 0.37 additional dependency er- and predicted POS (MSDG and MSDP, respec-
rors. In contrast, for MSD this error propagation tively). BL values higher than UDPG are under-
is0.46,thushigher. 5 lined,andUDPG valueshigher thanMSDG arein
FortheextremePOSscenario,contentvs. func- boldface.
tion POS (CF), the drop in performance for UDP
is very large, but this might be too crude an eval-
uationsetup. Nevertheless, UDP,thesimpleunsu- 6.1 PageRankcontribution
pervised system with PageRank, outperforms the
adjacency baselines (BL) by ∼4% on average on UDP depends on PageRank to score content
the two type-based naive POS tag scenario. This words, and on two-step decoding to ensure the
difference indicates that even with very deficient leaf status of function words. In this section we
POStags,UDPcanprovidebetterstructures. isolate the constribution of both parts. We do so
by comparing the performance of BL, UDP, and
6 Discussion UDPNoPR, a version of UDP where we disable
PRandrankcontentwordsaccordingtotheirread-
In this section we provide a further error analysis
ing order, i.e., the first word in the ranking is the
of the UDP parser. We examine the contribution
first word to be read, regardless of the specific
to the overal results of using PageRank to score
language’s script direction. The baseline BL de-
content words, the behavior of the system across
scribed in 5.1 already ensures function words are
differentpartsofspeech,andweassesstherobust-
leaf nodes, because they have no listed dependent
nessofUDPontextfromdifferent domains.
POS in the head rules. The task of the decoding
steps is mainly to ensure the resulting structures
5Err.prop.=(E(ParseP)−E(ParseG))/E(POSP),
whereE(x)=1−Accuracy(x). arewell-formeddependency trees.
If we measure the difference between UDPNoPR (an average of 21%, standard deviation of 9.6),
andBL,weseethatUDPNoPR contributes with4 even lower than the otherwise problematic CONJ.
UAS points on average over the baseline. Nev- Eventhough conjunctions arepervasive and iden-
ertheless, the baseline is oracle-informed about tifying their scope is one of the usual challenges
thelanguage’sbestbranchingdirection,aproperty for parsers, the average UAS for CONJ is much
thatUDPdoesnothave. Instead,thedecodingstep larger (an average of 38%, standard deviation of
determines head direction as described in Section 13.5)thanfor PUNCT. BothPOSshowlarge stan-
3.2. Complementarily, wecanmeasurethecontri- dard deviations, which indicates great variability.
bution ofPRby observing thedifference between This variability can be caused by linguistic prop-
regular UDPand UDPNoPR. The latter scores on erties of the languages or evaluation datasets, but
average 9 UAS points lower than UDP. These 9 alsobydifferences inannotation convention.
points are caused by the difference attachment of
contentwordsinthefirstdecoding step. 6.3 Cross-domain consistency
Models with fewer parameters are less likely
6.2 BreakdownbyPOS
to overfit for a certain dataset. In our case,
UD is a constantly improving effort, and not all a system with few, general rules is less likely
v1.2 treebanks have the same level of formalism to make attachment decisions that are very
compliance. Thus, the interpretation of, e.g., the particular of a certain language or dataset.
AUX–VERB or DET–PRON distinctions might dif- PlankandvanNoord(2010)haveshownthatrule-
fer across treebanks. However, we ignore these based parsers can be more stable to domain shift.
differences in our analysis and consider all tree- WeexploreiftheirfindingholdsforUDPaswell,
bankstobeequallycompliant. bytestingoni)theUDdevelopmentdataasaread-
Therootaccuracyscoresoscillatearoundanav- ilyavailable proxyfordomainshift,andii)manu-
erage of 69%, with Arabic and Tamil (26%) and allycurateddomainsplitsofselectUDtestsets.
Estonian (93%) as outliers. Given the PR per-
sonalization (Sec. 3.1), UDPhas a strong bias for Language Domain BLG MSDG UDPG MSDP UDPP
choosing the first verb as main predicate. With- Bulgarian bulletin 48.3 67.5 67.4 65.4 61.5
legal 47.9 76.9 69.2 73.0 68.6
outpersonalization, performance drops2%onav-
literature 53.6 74.2 69.0 72.8 66.6
erage. Thisdifference is consistent even forverb- news 49.3 74.6 70.2 73.0 68.2
various 51.4 74.2 72.5 72.6 69.5
finallanguageslikeHindi,giventhatthemainverb
Croatian news 41.2 62.4 57.9 61.8 52.2
ofasimpleclausewillbeitsonlyverb,regardless wiki 41.9 64.8 55.8 58.2 56.3
of where it appears. Moreover, using PR person- English answers 44.1 61.6 55.9 59.5 53.7
email 42.8 58.8 52.1 57.1 56.3
alization makes the ranking calculations converge
newsgroup 41.7 55.5 49.7 52.9 51.1
awholeorderofmagnitude faster. reviews 47.4 66.8 54.9 63.9 52.2
weblog 43.3 51.6 50.9 49.8 53.8
The bigram heuristic to determine adposition magazine† 41.4 60.9 55.6 58.4 53.3
direction succeeds at identifying the predominant bible† 38.4 56.2 56.2 56.8 48.6
questions† 38.7 69.7 55.6 60.5 47.2
pre- or postposition preference for all languages
Italian europarl 50.8 64.1 70.6 62.7 69.7
(average ADP UAS of 75%). The fixed direc- legal 51.1 67.9 69.0 64.4 67.2
news 49.4 68.9 67.5 67.0 65.3
tion for the other functional POS is largely effec-
questions 48.7 80.0 77.0 79.1 76.1
tive,withfewexceptions, e.g.,DET isconsistently various 49.7 67.8 69.0 65.3 67.6
wiki 51.8 71.2 68.1 70.3 66.6
right-attachingonalltreebanksexceptBasque(av-
Serbian news 42.8 68.0 58.8 65.6 53.3
erageoverall DET UASof84%,32%forBasque). wiki 42.4 68.9 58.8 62.8 55.8
These alternations could also be estimated from
the data in a manner similar to ADP. Our rules Table 6: Evaluation across domains. UAS for
do not make nouns eligible heads for verbs. As a baseline with gold POS (BLG), UDP with gold
result,thesystemcannotinferrelativeclauses. We POS (UDPG) and predicted POS (UDPP), and
haveexcluded the NOUN → VERB ruleduring de- multi-source delexicalized with gold and pre-
velopmentbecauseitmakesthehierarchybetween dictedPOS(MSDG andMSDP). Englishdatasets
verbsandnounslessconclusive. marked with†are in-house annotated. Lowestre-
sultsperlanguage underlined. Bold: UDPoutper-
We have not excluded punctuation from the
formsMSD.
evaluation. Indeed, theUASforthe PUNCT islow
Development sets We have used the English de- Language BLG MSDG UDPG MSDP UDPP
velopment data to choose which relations would Bulgarian 50.1±2.4 73.5±3.5 69.7±1.8 71.3±3.3 66.9±3.2
Croatian+Serbian 42.1±0.7 66.0±3.0 57.8±1.4 62.1±3.0 54.4±2.0
be included as head rules in the final system (Ta- English 42.2±2.8 60.1±6.2 53.9±2.5 57.3±4.3 52.0±3.3
Italian 50.3±1.2 70.0±5.4 70.1±3.3 68.1±6.0 68.7±3.9
ble1). Itwouldbepossible thatsome oftherules
AverageStd. 1.8 4.5 2.5 4.2 3.1
are indeed more befitting for the English data or
forthatparticular section. Table 7: Average language-wise domain evalua-
However, if we regard the results for UDPG in tion. We report average UAS and standard devi-
Table 5, we can see that there are 24 languages ation per language. The bottom row provides the
(out of 32) for which the parser performs better averagestandard deviationforeachsystem.
than for English. This result indicates that the
head rules are general enough to provide reason-
guages. We attribute this higher stability to UDP
able parses for languages other than the one cho-
being developed to satisfy a set of general prop-
sen for development. If we run UDPG on the de-
erties of the UD syntactic formalism, instead of
velopment sections for the other languages, we
beingadata-drivenmethodmoresensitivetosam-
find the results are very consistent. Any language
pling bias. This holds for both the gold-POS and
scoresonaverage±1UASwithregardstothetest
predicted-POS setup. The differences in standard
section. There is no clear tendency for either sec-
deviation are unsurprisingly smaller in the pre-
tionbeingeasiertoparsewithUDP.
dicted POSsetup. Ingeneral, therule-based UPD
Cross-domain test sets To further assess the
is less sensitive to domain shifts than the data-
cross-domain robustness, weretrievedthedomain
driven MSD counterpart, confirming earlier find-
(genre)splitsfromthetestsectionsoftheUDtree-
ings(PlankandvanNoord,2010).
banks where the domain information is available
Table 6 gives the detailed scores per language
as sentence metadata: from Bulgarian, Croatian,
and domain. From the scores we can see that
and Italian. Wealso include aUD-compliant Ser-
presidential bulletin, legal and weblogs
bian dataset which is not included in the UD re-
are amongst the hardest domains to parse. How-
lease but which is based on the same parallel cor-
ever, the systems often donot agree onwhich do-
pus as Croatian and has the same domain splits
main is hardest, with the exception of Bulgarian
(Agic´ andLjubešic´,2015). When averaging we
bulletin. Interestingly, fortheItalian dataand
pool Croatian and Serbian together as they come
some of the hardest domains UDP outperforms
fromthesamedataset.
MSD,confirmingthatitisarobustbaseline.
For English, we have obtained the test data
splitsmatchingthesentencesfromtheoriginaldis-
6.4 Comparisontofullsupervision
tributionoftheEnglishWebTreebank. Inaddition
to these already available datasets, we have an- Inorder to assess how much information the sim-
notated three different datasets to assess domain ple principles in UDP provide, we measure how
variation more extensively, namely the first 50 many gold-annotated sentences are necessary to
versesoftheKingJamesBible,50sentencesfrom reach itsperformance, thatis, after whichsizethe
a magazine, and 75 sentences from the test split treebankprovidesenoughinformationfortraining
in QuestionBank (Judgeetal.,2006). We include that goes beyond the simple linguistic principles
the third dataset to evaluate strictly on questions, outlinedinSection3.
which we could do already in Italian. While the For this comparison we use a first-order non-
answers domain in English is made up of text projective TurboParser (Martinsetal.,2013) fol-
from the Yahoo! Answers forum, only one fourth lowing the setup of Agic´ etal.(2016). The su-
of the sentences are questions. Note these three pervised parsers require around 100 sentences to
small datasets are not included in the results on reach UDP-comparable performance, namely a
thecanonical testsections inTable5. mean of 300 sentences and a median of 100 sen-
Table 7 summarizes the per-language average tences, with Bulgarian (3k), Czech (1k), and Ger-
scoreandstandarddeviation,aswellasthemacro- man (1.5k) as outliers. The difference between
averaged standard deviation across languages. mean and median shows there is great variance,
UDP has a much lower standard deviation across while UDPprovides very constant results, also in
domainscomparedtoMSD.Thisholdsacrosslan- termsofPOSanddomainvariation.
7 Conclusion References
We have presented UDP, an unsupervised depen- [Abney1987] Steven Paul Abney. 1987. The English
noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. thesis,
dency parser for Universal Dependencies (UD)
MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology.
that makes use of personalized PageRank and a
small set of head-dependent rules. The parser re- [Agic´etal.2016] ŽeljkoAgic´, AndersJohannsen,Bar-
quiresnotrainingdataandestimatesadpositiondi- bara Plank, Héctor Alonso Martínez, Natalie
rectiondirectly fromtheinput. Schluter, and AndersSøgaard. 2016. Multilingual
Projection for Parsing Truly Low-Resource Lan-
Weachieve competitive performance on all but
guages. Transactions of the Association for Com-
two UD languages, and even beat a multi-source putationalLinguistics,4.
delexicalized parser (MSD) on Hindi. We eval-
uated the parser on three POS setups and across [Agic´andLjubešic´2015] Željko Agic´ and Nikola
Ljubešic´. 2015. Universal Dependencies for
domains. Our results show that UDP is less af-
Croatian(thatWorkforSerbian,too). InBSNLP.
fected by deteriorating POS tags than MSD, and
is more resilient to domain changes. Given how
[Agic´etal.2015] Željko Agic´, Dirk Hovy, and Anders
much of the overall dependency structure can be Søgaard. 2015. If All You Have is a Bit of
explained by this fairly system, we propose UDP the Bible: Learning POS Taggers for Truly Low-
ResourceLanguages. InACL.
as an additional UD parsing baseline. The parser,
the in-house annotated test sets, and the domain
[Bender2009] Emily M. Bender. 2009. Linguistically
datasplitsaremadefreelyavailable.6 naÏve != language independent: Why NLP needs
UD is a running project, and the guidelines are linguistic typology. In Proceedings of the EACL
2009WorkshopontheInteractionBetweenLinguis-
bound to evolve overtime. Indeed, the UD 2.0
tics and Computational Linguistics: Virtuous, Vi-
guidelines have been recently released. UDP can
ciousorVacuous?
be augmented with edge labeling for some deter-
ministic labels like case or det. Some further [Brants2000] ThorstenBrants. 2000. TnT–AStatisti-
constrains canbeincorporated inUDP.Moreover, calPart-of-SpeechTagger. InANLP.
the parser makes no special treatment of multi-
[BrinandPage2012] Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page.
word expression that would require alexicon, co-
2012. Reprint of: The Anatomy of a Large-Scale
ordinations orpropernames. Allthesethreekinds Hypertextual Web Search Engine. Computer net-
of structures have a flat tree where all words de- works,56(18).
pend on the leftmost one. While coordination at-
[DasandPetrov2011] Dipanjan Das and Slav Petrov.
tachment isaclassical problem inparsing andout
2011. Unsupervised Part-of-Speech Tagging with
ofthescopeofourwork, apropernamesequence
BilingualGraph-BasedProjections. InACL.
can be straightforwardly identified from the part-
of-speechtags,anditfallsthusintheareaofstruc- [DeMarneffeetal.2014] Marie-Catherine De Marn-
effe,TimothyDozat,NataliaSilveira,KatriHaveri-
tures predictable using simple heuristics. More-
nen, Filip Ginter, Joakim Nivre, andChristopherD
over, our use of PageRank could be expanded to
Manning. 2014. UniversalStanfordDependencies:
directly score the potential dependency edges in- ACross-LinguisticTypology. InLREC.
steadofwords,e.g.,bymeansofedgereification.
[Gellingetal.2012] DouweGelling, TrevorCohn, Phil
Acknowledgments Blunsom,andJoaoGraça. 2012. ThePascalChal-
lengeonGrammarInduction. InProceedingsofthe
NAACL-HLTWorkshopontheInductionofLinguis-
Wethank theanonymous reviewersfortheirvalu-
ticStructure.
able feedback. Héctor Martínez Alonso is funded
bythe French DGAproject VerDi. Barbara Plank [Gillenwateretal.2010] Jennifer Gillenwater, Kuzman
thanks the Center for Information Technology of Ganchev, Joao Graça, Fernando Pereira, and Ben
the University of Groningen for the HPC cluster. Taskar. 2010. Sparsity in Dependency Grammar
Induction. InACL.
Željko Agic´ and Barbara Plank thank the Nvidia
Corporation for supporting their research. An-
[Hwaetal.2005] Rebecca Hwa, Philip Resnik, Amy
dersSøgaardisfunded bytheERCStartingGrant Weinberg, Clara Cabezas, and Okan Kolak. 2005.
LOWLANDSNo. 313695. Bootstrapping Parsers via Syntactic Projection
AcrossParallelTexts. NaturalLanguageEngineer-
6https://github.com/hectormartinez/ud_unsup_ipnagr,1s1e(r03).
[Johannsenetal.2015] Anders Johannsen, Héctor Héctor Martínez Alonso, Jan Mašek, Yuji Mat-
Martínez Alonso, and Barbara Plank. 2015. Uni- sumoto, Ryan McDonald, Anna Missilä, Verginica
versal dependencies for Danish. In International Mititelu, Yusuke Miyao, Simonetta Montemagni,
Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories ShunsukeMori,HannaNurmi,PetyaOsenova,Lilja
(TLT14),page157. Øvrelid, Elena Pascual, Marco Passarotti, Cenel-
Augusto Perez, Slav Petrov, Jussi Piitulainen, Bar-
[Johannsenetal.2016] AndersJohannsen,ŽeljkoAgic´, bara Plank, Martin Popel, Prokopis Prokopidis,
and Anders Søgaard. 2016. Joint Part-of-Speech Sampo Pyysalo, Loganathan Ramasamy, Rudolf
andDependencyProjectionfromMultipleSources. Rosa, Shadi Saleh, Sebastian Schuster, Wolfgang
InACL. Seeker,MojganSeraji,NataliaSilveira,MariaSimi,
Radu Simionescu, Katalin Simkó, Kiril Simov,
[Judgeetal.2006] John Judge, Aoife Cahill, and Josef
Aaron Smith, Jan Šteˇpánek, Alane Suhr, Zsolt
Van Genabith. 2006. Questionbank: Creating a
Szántó,TakaakiTanaka,ReutTsarfaty,SumireUe-
CorpusofParse-AnnotatedQuestions. InACL.
matsu,LarraitzUria,ViktorVarga,VeronikaVincze,
Zdeneˇk Žabokrtský, Daniel Zeman, and Hanzhi
[KleinandManning2004] Dan Klein and Christopher
Zhu. 2015. UniversalDependencies1.2.
Manning. 2004. Corpus-Based Induction of Syn-
tactic Structure: Models of Dependency and Con-
[Nivreetal.2016] Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine
stituency. InACL.
de Marneffe, Filip Ginter, Yoav Goldberg, Jan
[Lofgren2015] Peter Lofgren. 2015. Efficient Al- Hajic, Christopher D Manning, Ryan McDonald,
gorithms for Personalized PageRank. CoRR, Slav Petrov,SampoPyysalo, Natalia Silveira, etal.
abs/1512.04633. 2016. Universal dependencies v1: A multilingual
treebank collection. In Proceedings of the 10th
[MaandXia2014] XuezheMaandFeiXia. 2014. Un- International Conference on Language Resources
supervised Dependency Parsing with Transferring andEvaluation(LREC2016).
DistributionviaParallelGuidanceandEntropyReg-
ularization. InACL. [Pageetal.1999] Lawrence Page, Sergey Brin, Rajeev
Motwani, and Terry Winograd. 1999. The PageR-
[Martinsetal.2013] André F. T. Martins, Miguel
ankCitationRanking:BringingOrdertotheWeb.
Almeida, and Noah A. Smith. 2013. Turning on
the Turbo: Fast Third-Order Non-Projective Turbo [PlankandvanNoord2010] BarbaraPlankand Gertjan
Parsers. InACL. van Noord. 2010. Grammar-Driven versus Data-
Driven:WhichParsingSystemIsMoreAffectedby
[McDonaldetal.2011] Ryan McDonald, Slav Petrov,
DomainShifts? In Proceedingsofthe 2010Work-
and Keith Hall. 2011. Multi-Source Transfer of
shoponNLPandLinguistics: FindingtheCommon
DelexicalizedDependencyParsers. InEMNLP.
Ground.
[McDonaldetal.2013] RyanMcDonald,JoakimNivre,
[RasooliandCollins2015] MohammadSadeghRasooli
Yvonne Quirmbach-Brundage,Yoav Goldberg, Di-
and Michael Collins. 2015. Density-Driven
panjan Das, Kuzman Ganchev, Keith Hall, Slav
Cross-LingualTransfer of Dependency Parsers. In
Petrov, Hao Zhang, Oscar Täckström, Claudia Be-
EMNLP.
dini, Núria Bertomeu Castelló, and Jungmee Lee.
2013. Universal Dependency Annotation for Mul-
[Spitkovskyetal.2010a] Valentin Spitkovsky, Hiyan
tilingualParsing. InACL.
Alshawi, and Daniel Jurafsky. 2010a. From Baby
[Naseemetal.2010] TahiraNaseem,HarrChen,Regina Steps to Leapfrog: How Less is More in Unsuper-
Barzilay,andMarkJohnson. 2010. UsingUniversal visedDependencyParsing. InNAACL.
LinguisticKnowledgetoGuideGrammarInduction.
InEMNLP. [Spitkovskyetal.2010b] Valentin Spitkovsky, Hiyan
Alshawi,DanielJurafsky,andChristopherManning.
[Nivreetal.2015] JoakimNivre,ŽeljkoAgic´,MariaJe- 2010b. ViterbiTrainingImprovesUnsupervisedDe-
sus Aranzabe, Masayuki Asahara, Aitziber Atutxa, pendencyParsing. InCoNLL.
Miguel Ballesteros, John Bauer, Kepa Bengoetxea,
Riyaz AhmadBhat, Cristina Bosco, Sam Bowman, [Søgaard2011] AndersSøgaard. 2011. Data PointSe-
Giuseppe G. A. Celano, Miriam Connor, Marie- lection for Cross-Language Adaptation of Depen-
Catherine de Marneffe, Arantza Diaz de Ilarraza, dencyParsers. InNAACL.
Kaja Dobrovoljc, Timothy Dozat, Tomaž Erjavec,
Richárd Farkas, Jennifer Foster, Daniel Galbraith, [Søgaard2012a] Anders Søgaard. 2012a. Two Base-
Filip Ginter,IakesGoenaga,KoldoGojenola,Yoav linesforUnsupervisedDependencyParsing. InPro-
Goldberg, Berta Gonzales, Bruno Guillaume, Jan ceedings of the NAACL-HLT Workshop on the In-
Hajicˇ, Dag Haug, Radu Ion, Elena Irimia, An- ductionofLinguisticStructure.
ders Johannsen, Hiroshi Kanayama, Jenna Kan-
erva, Simon Krek, Veronika Laippala, Alessan- [Søgaard2012b] Anders Søgaard. 2012b. Unsuper-
dro Lenci, Nikola Ljubešic´, Teresa Lynn, Christo- viseddependencyparsingwithouttraining. Natural
pherManning,Ca˘ta˘linaMa˘ra˘nduc,DavidMarecˇek, LanguageEngineering,18(2).
