In-Order Transition-based Constituent Parsing
About
Both bottom-up and top-down strategies have been used for neural transition-based constituent parsing. The parsing strategies differ in terms of the order in which they recognize productions in the derivation tree, where bottom-up strategies and top-down strategies take post-order and pre-order traversal over trees, respectively. Bottom-up parsers benefit from rich features from readily built partial parses, but lack lookahead guidance in the parsing process; top-down parsers benefit from non-local guidance for local decisions, but rely on a strong encoder over the input to predict a constituent hierarchy before its construction.To mitigate both issues, we propose a novel parsing system based on in-order traversal over syntactic trees, designing a set of transition actions to find a compromise between bottom-up constituent information and top-down lookahead information. Based on stack-LSTM, our psycholinguistically motivated constituent parsing system achieves 91.8 F1 on WSJ benchmark. Furthermore, the system achieves 93.6 F1 with supervised reranking and 94.2 F1 with semi-supervised reranking, which are the best results on the WSJ benchmark.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constituent Parsing | PTB (test) | F195.71 | 127 | |
| Dependency Parsing | Chinese Treebank (CTB) (test) | UAS89.4 | 99 | |
| Constituency Parsing | Penn Treebank WSJ (section 23 test) | F1 Score94.2 | 55 | |
| Constituent Parsing | CTB (test) | F1 Score91.81 | 45 | |
| Constituency Parsing | WSJ Penn Treebank (test) | F1 Score94.2 | 27 | |
| Constituency Parsing | CTB 5.1 (test) | F1 Score91.81 | 25 | |
| Dependency Parsing | WSJ section 23 (test) | UAS96.2 | 10 | |
| Constituency Parsing | Cross-domain (Bio, Dialogue, Forum, Law, Literature, Review) (test) | Accuracy (Bio)86.33 | 3 |