An improved neural network model for joint POS tagging and dependency parsing
About
We propose a novel neural network model for joint part-of-speech (POS) tagging and dependency parsing. Our model extends the well-known BIST graph-based dependency parser (Kiperwasser and Goldberg, 2016) by incorporating a BiLSTM-based tagging component to produce automatically predicted POS tags for the parser. On the benchmark English Penn treebank, our model obtains strong UAS and LAS scores at 94.51% and 92.87%, respectively, producing 1.5+% absolute improvements to the BIST graph-based parser, and also obtaining a state-of-the-art POS tagging accuracy at 97.97%. Furthermore, experimental results on parsing 61 "big" Universal Dependencies treebanks from raw texts show that our model outperforms the baseline UDPipe (Straka and Strakov\'a, 2017) with 0.8% higher average POS tagging score and 3.6% higher average LAS score. In addition, with our model, we also obtain state-of-the-art downstream task scores for biomedical event extraction and opinion analysis applications. Our code is available together with all pre-trained models at: https://github.com/datquocnguyen/jPTDP
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependency Parsing | Penn Treebank (PTB) Section 23 v2.2 (test) | UAS94.51 | 17 | |
| POS Tagging | Penn Treebank (PTB) Section 23 v2.2 (test) | POS Accuracy97.97 | 15 | |
| Universal Dependency Parsing | CoNLL Shared Task all treebanks 2018 (test) | UPOS Accuracy87.9 | 5 | |
| Event extraction | EPE 2018 (Evaluation) | F1 Score53.59 | 3 | |
| Universal Dependency Parsing | CoNLL 2018 Shared Task 61 Big treebanks UD v2.2 (test) | UPOS95.63 | 3 | |
| Universal Dependency Parsing | CoNLL Shared Task 5 PUD parallel treebanks 2018 UD v2.2 (test) | UPOS Accuracy90.21 | 3 | |
| Universal Dependency Parsing | CoNLL 7 Small treebanks 2018 UD v2.2 (test) | UPOS Accuracy87.64 | 3 | |
| Event extraction | EPE 2018 (dev) | F1 Score54.33 | 3 | |
| Opinion analysis | EPE 2018 (dev) | F1 Score66.81 | 3 | |
| Opinion analysis | EPE 2018 (evaluation set) | F1 Score64.72 | 3 |