Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2020
DOI: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.376
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Enriched In-Order Linearization for Faster Sequence-to-Sequence Constituent Parsing

Abstract: Sequence-to-sequence constituent parsing requires a linearization to represent trees as sequences. Top-down tree linearizations, which can be based on brackets or shift-reduce actions, have achieved the best accuracy to date. In this paper, we show that these results can be improved by using an inorder linearization instead. Based on this observation, we implement an enriched inorder shift-reduce linearization inspired by Vinyals et al. (2015)'s approach, achieving the best accuracy to date on the English PTB … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this respect, a practical characteristic of sequence labeling approaches to parsing is that they are more efficient than seq2seq models. For example, the single-core speeds of the seq2seq constituent parsers of Fernández-González and Gómez-Rodríguez [143], albeit optimized for speed, are an order of magnitude slower than those of sequence labeling constituent parsers [121,122]. This is compounded by the fact that sequence labeling is much easier to parallelize, so that the differences can be even larger in multi-core settings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this respect, a practical characteristic of sequence labeling approaches to parsing is that they are more efficient than seq2seq models. For example, the single-core speeds of the seq2seq constituent parsers of Fernández-González and Gómez-Rodríguez [143], albeit optimized for speed, are an order of magnitude slower than those of sequence labeling constituent parsers [121,122]. This is compounded by the fact that sequence labeling is much easier to parallelize, so that the differences can be even larger in multi-core settings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, parsers of this type suffer from the exposure bias during inference. Beside these methods, Seq2Seq models have been used to generate a linearized form of the tree (Vinyals et al, 2015b;Kamigaito et al, 2017;Suzuki et al, 2018;Fernández-González and Gómez-Rodríguez, 2020a). However, these methods may generate invalid trees when the open and end brackets do not match.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, they lagged behind classic parsers based on explicit tree-structured algorithms and supported by a more extensive research background. The gap between task-specific constituent parsers and sequence-to-sequence models cannot be only quantified in terms of accuracy and speed (Fernández-González and Gómez-Rodríguez, 2020b), but also in coverage: to the best of our knowledge, the latter have not been applied to discontinuous constituent parsing to date.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• The implementation of a novel sequence-to-sequence constituent parser, 1 building on the work developed by Fernández-González and Gómez-Rodríguez (2020b) and Fernandez Astudillo, Ballesteros, Naseem, Blodgett and Florian (2020). While the former defines linearizations for continuous parsing that outperform those previously proposed, the latter introduces a deterministic attention technique over a powerful Transformer sequence-to-sequence architecture (Ott, Edunov, Baevski, Fan, Gross, Ng, Grangier and Auli, 2019) that significantly increases prediction accuracy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%