@inproceedings{cer-etal-2010-parsing,
title = "Parsing to {S}tanford Dependencies: Trade-offs between Speed and Accuracy",
author = "Cer, Daniel and
de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine and
Jurafsky, Dan and
Manning, Chris",
editor = "Calzolari, Nicoletta and
Choukri, Khalid and
Maegaard, Bente and
Mariani, Joseph and
Odijk, Jan and
Piperidis, Stelios and
Rosner, Mike and
Tapias, Daniel",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation ({LREC}'10)",
month = may,
year = "2010",
address = "Valletta, Malta",
publisher = "European Language Resources Association (ELRA)",
url = "http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/730_Paper.pdf",
abstract = "We investigate a number of approaches to generating Stanford Dependencies, a widely used semantically-oriented dependency representation. We examine algorithms specifically designed for dependency parsing (Nivre, Nivre Eager, Covington, Eisner, and RelEx) as well as dependencies extracted from constituent parse trees created by phrase structure parsers (Charniak, Charniak-Johnson, Bikel, Berkeley and Stanford). We found that constituent parsers systematically outperform algorithms designed specifically for dependency parsing. The most accurate method for generating dependencies is the Charniak-Johnson reranking parser, with 89{\%} (labeled) attachment F1 score. The fastest methods are Nivre, Nivre Eager, and Covington, used with a linear classifier to make local parsing decisions, which can parse the entire Penn Treebank development set (section 22) in less than 10 seconds on an Intel Xeon E5520. However, this speed comes with a substantial drop in F1 score (about 76{\%} for labeled attachment) compared to competing methods. By tuning how much of the search space is explored by the Charniak-Johnson parser, we are able to arrive at a balanced configuration that is both fast and nearly as good as the most accurate approaches.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="cer-etal-2010-parsing">
<titleInfo>
<title>Parsing to Stanford Dependencies: Trade-offs between Speed and Accuracy</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Daniel</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Cer</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Marie-Catherine</namePart>
<namePart type="family">de Marneffe</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Dan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Jurafsky</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Chris</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Manning</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2010-05</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nicoletta</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Calzolari</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Khalid</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Choukri</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Bente</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Maegaard</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Joseph</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Mariani</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Odijk</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Stelios</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Piperidis</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Mike</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Rosner</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Daniel</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Tapias</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>European Language Resources Association (ELRA)</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Valletta, Malta</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>We investigate a number of approaches to generating Stanford Dependencies, a widely used semantically-oriented dependency representation. We examine algorithms specifically designed for dependency parsing (Nivre, Nivre Eager, Covington, Eisner, and RelEx) as well as dependencies extracted from constituent parse trees created by phrase structure parsers (Charniak, Charniak-Johnson, Bikel, Berkeley and Stanford). We found that constituent parsers systematically outperform algorithms designed specifically for dependency parsing. The most accurate method for generating dependencies is the Charniak-Johnson reranking parser, with 89% (labeled) attachment F1 score. The fastest methods are Nivre, Nivre Eager, and Covington, used with a linear classifier to make local parsing decisions, which can parse the entire Penn Treebank development set (section 22) in less than 10 seconds on an Intel Xeon E5520. However, this speed comes with a substantial drop in F1 score (about 76% for labeled attachment) compared to competing methods. By tuning how much of the search space is explored by the Charniak-Johnson parser, we are able to arrive at a balanced configuration that is both fast and nearly as good as the most accurate approaches.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">cer-etal-2010-parsing</identifier>
<location>
<url>http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/730_Paper.pdf</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2010-05</date>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Parsing to Stanford Dependencies: Trade-offs between Speed and Accuracy
%A Cer, Daniel
%A de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine
%A Jurafsky, Dan
%A Manning, Chris
%Y Calzolari, Nicoletta
%Y Choukri, Khalid
%Y Maegaard, Bente
%Y Mariani, Joseph
%Y Odijk, Jan
%Y Piperidis, Stelios
%Y Rosner, Mike
%Y Tapias, Daniel
%S Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10)
%D 2010
%8 May
%I European Language Resources Association (ELRA)
%C Valletta, Malta
%F cer-etal-2010-parsing
%X We investigate a number of approaches to generating Stanford Dependencies, a widely used semantically-oriented dependency representation. We examine algorithms specifically designed for dependency parsing (Nivre, Nivre Eager, Covington, Eisner, and RelEx) as well as dependencies extracted from constituent parse trees created by phrase structure parsers (Charniak, Charniak-Johnson, Bikel, Berkeley and Stanford). We found that constituent parsers systematically outperform algorithms designed specifically for dependency parsing. The most accurate method for generating dependencies is the Charniak-Johnson reranking parser, with 89% (labeled) attachment F1 score. The fastest methods are Nivre, Nivre Eager, and Covington, used with a linear classifier to make local parsing decisions, which can parse the entire Penn Treebank development set (section 22) in less than 10 seconds on an Intel Xeon E5520. However, this speed comes with a substantial drop in F1 score (about 76% for labeled attachment) compared to competing methods. By tuning how much of the search space is explored by the Charniak-Johnson parser, we are able to arrive at a balanced configuration that is both fast and nearly as good as the most accurate approaches.
%U http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/730_Paper.pdf
Markdown (Informal)
[Parsing to Stanford Dependencies: Trade-offs between Speed and Accuracy](http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/730_Paper.pdf) (Cer et al., LREC 2010)
ACL